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 3, 1995

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 19, Number 14

[ Page 13927 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

D. Lovick: Seated in the gallery today are a group of people, some good friends from my colleague's Parksville-Qualicum constituency and an old friend of mine: Dr. Andra Thakur and his daughter Nitu Thakur. Accompanying them today are two people I had the pleasure of meeting yesterday, John and Noreen Goss, who are visiting us from the United Kingdom. I would ask my colleagues to please join me in making them welcome.

Hon. A. Petter: Seated in the gallery today are three volunteers who provide their tireless efforts in my community office on behalf of the people of Saanich South. They are Sharon Pearson, Sheila Dogue and Beth Rutherford. Accompanying them is Tony Gibb, who is my constituency assistant. I ask the House to please make them very welcome.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I'm sure all members of the Legislature will join me in a warm, non-partisan welcome to the people who are on the front lines and who are dealing with the public all the time: the constituency assistants. You'll see in the gallery the constituency assistants for the 51 NDP MLAs, who are here to figure out how we can better serve the people of this province. I would like you all to give a very warm welcome to the constituency assistants.

D. Symons: On behalf of my colleague from the riding of Surrey-Cloverdale, I would like to introduce a group of 55 grade 5 students from Pacific Academy. They are accompanied by several parents and their teachers, Mrs. Sharon Douglas and Mrs. Bev Bodill. Would the House please make them welcome.

M. Farnworth: In the gallery today are two constituents of mine who are longtime residents of Port Coquitlam and extremely active in the community. Their names are Lilian and Morven Reid. Accompanying them are two friends of theirs who have travelled some 15,000 miles from the Australian state of South Australia and the great city of Adelaide. Their names are Roma Thiele and Gerald Thiele, and I would bid the House please make them welcome.

Hon. M. Sihota: Seated on the floor of the Legislature today is Saskatoon's NDP MP, who is also the MP for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: In Saskatoon and Saskatchewan, of course, the New Democrats are far from being an endangered species, hon. member. Would all members please give a warm welcome to Chris Axworthy.

T. Perry: A journal I don't normally like to refer to -- the Vancouver Sun -- reports on its third page the prodigious accomplishment of David Savitt, a 17-year-old mathematics student at the University of British Columbia who scored tenth in the William Lowell Putman Mathematics Competition, along with that of two colleagues of his, Robert Cheng and Mark van Raamsdonk. As my distinguished colleague from Richmond-Steveston would note, prodigious talent of this type does not spring deus ex machina.

It arises directly from the prodigious talent of my constituency assistant, David's mother, Mary Lynn Baum, who is with us in the gallery. I would like all of the members to join me in making her welcome. But before they do, I'd like them to note that the Sun also reproduced an example of the problems on the test. I'm fully confident that each and every member of this House is capable of solving this problem, particularly if they look at the last line in the illustration in the Sun. Would members please join me in welcoming Mary Lynn Baum.

The Speaker: The hon. member for Nanaimo -- pardon me, for Alberni.

G. Janssen: Obviously a little further to the north, and a lot better community than Nanaimo.

D. Lovick: Dissension in the ranks!

G. Janssen: I ask the House to welcome two constituents, Karl Angus and Jack McDonald, members of the Cooperative Community Voice, who are visiting the precincts today.

Introduction of Bills

FOREST PRACTICES CODE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA AMENDMENT ACT, 1995

Hon. A. Petter presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Amendment Act, 1995.

Hon. A. Petter: Bill 18 introduces a number of amendments to the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act. When this government came to office, we promised to change fundamentally the way we manage our provincial forests. Accordingly, last May we introduced the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act in this Legislature, and that act was, of course, enacted by this Legislature. For the first time ever, sustainable forestry practices were made legally enforceable, backed up by tough penalties for non-compliance and ensuring that public confidence would continue to build in our forest industry.

More recently, following extensive public consultation and review, we proclaimed the regulations required to flesh out the Forest Practices Code, and also as a result of that review, we are introducing this bill today, which builds on this government's commitment to sustainable forest practices by making amendments that will help to clarify and refine that legislation.

Bill 18 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.

[ Page 13928 ]

Oral Questions

KIMBER CABS DECISION

D. Symons: My question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Last year, the minister overturned a Motor Carrier Commission decision and awarded 18 new licences worth $100,000 apiece on the market to Kimber Cabs. We note that Kimber Cabs drivers are aggressively fighting, even physically, for able-bodied passengers at Richmond hotels. Will the minister now admit she made a mistake, and that she should have given more attention to the commission's reasoning for denying the plates to Kimber?

Hon. A. Edwards: No.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

D. Symons: The licences were issued to Kimber Cabs by Richmond in 1990. They were class N licences, and those are for carrying disabled passengers. I quote from a Motor Carrier Commission order: "This licence is restricted to the use of accessible taxicabs only, which must solely transport at all times persons with a disability." Seeing that Kimber Cabs has habitually violated the commission's restrictions, my question to the minister is: will she commit to initiating action to revoke the 18 carrier plates wrongfully granted to Kimber Cabs a year ago?

[2:15]

G. Farrell-Collins: I find it interesting that the minister is unwilling to answer questions. I suppose she would like to consult for some advice before she does so, because I note from correspondence we received from the Motor Carrier Commission that contrary to what the minister said in the House, and contrary to what the Premier said in the House and outside in the corridors, the licence that was granted to Kimber Cabs was not for the exclusive use of handicapped people.

Rather, the minister redirected the restrictions on that licence after it was granted to Kimber Cabs -- after the objections of the opposition -- and made that licence available so that Kimber Cabs could pick up all passengers in Richmond.

Can the minister tell us why she changed that decision and that restriction for Kimber Cabs so that they were allowed to pick up all passengers in Richmond?

Hon. A. Edwards: I am not the minister responsible for this issue, and I believe it is not an appropriate question.

G. Farrell-Collins: This Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources sat in the appeal. She is the minister who clarified her decision and whose name is on the correspondence that went back and forth between herself and the Motor Carrier Commission.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The hon. member has a question?

G. Farrell-Collins: After this communication took place and there was a final decision ordering the Motor Carrier Commission to grant full licences to Kimber Cabs on August 30, 1994, can the minister explain why, in her opinion, on August 31, 1994, some 700 licences were sold at a price we can estimate to be approximately $100,000 each?

Hon. A. Edwards: I would be pleased to take the question on notice for the Minister of Transportation and Highways.

HIV TESTING FOR WOMEN

L. Reid: Women present 50 percent of all new HIV infections worldwide, and the growth of AIDS and HIV among North American women is about 50 percent higher than among men. These are frightening statistics. Unfortunately, women in British Columbia are being denied testing for the AIDS virus. Seventeen percent of women who are HIV-positive in British Columbia have previously been denied AIDS tests. Clearly, medicare is not working for women in British Columbia. They are not receiving equal access to essential services.

Will the Minister of Health commit to ensuring that women in this province are not ignored by our medical system and that they have access to the service they require?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Far from ignoring the very serious issue of the spread of the AIDS epidemic to women in the province, this government and this ministry have taken action to address it. The provincial health officer recently issued a warning to all physicians in the province, saying that HIV testing should be available to women. Apparently, there are some physicians who have not quite got the message yet, and they need to.

We have opened the new Oak Tree Clinic at the Women's Hospital and Health Centre to care specifically for women living with HIV and AIDS, and their children. This is precisely the sort of initiative we need, to react to new health challenges in medicare, and it is precisely the sort of initiative that is threatened by a Liberal withdrawal from medicare funding.

L. Reid: The fact remains that women in British Columbia have been turned away by their physicians when they requested an HIV test. Studies show that close to half of the women in British Columbia who are HIV-infected...

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. Please proceed.

L. Reid: ...do not realize they are infected, and they will likely never know if testing is continually denied them. Will this minister guarantee the women of this province that they will not be turned away for HIV testing?

Hon. P. Ramsey: No woman who seeks an HIV test will be refused it. It is available to all people in British Columbia; it is essential that this testing be available.

CFB CHILLIWACK AS EMERGENCY CENTRE

R. Chisholm: My question is to the Premier. While others in this assembly are worried about impending disaster tonight in the Abbotsford by-election, I continue to focus on the

[ Page 13929 ]

problems we would all encounter in times of natural disaster. While publicly thanking the Premier for his letter of last week and his invitation for me to meet with officials of the provincial emergency program -- which I am doing next week -- I raise the question today about what the province should be doing to press Ottawa more on the issue of how they can best help British Columbia in times of disaster and civil unrest -- and whether or not there could still be some major role for CFB Chilliwack in this regard.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I am pleased that the hon. member for Chilliwack is pursuing this question. I think it's unfortunate that the federal government is closing down the Chilliwack base. It's not something that was asked for by this government, certainly. We said that the federal government could have cut $9.3 million without cutting out these very important assets, and it wasn't this government at all that suggested the base be closed by the federal Liberal government.

I have had very good discussions with the member for Chilliwack about alternative uses; I've talked to the mayor of Chilliwack; we have assigned an economic development officer to work with Chilliwack to come up with an alternatives plan. I'm delighted that the member has taken up my suggestion to sit down with emergency experts in this province to look at a role for Chilliwack as a centre. I too, like he, question the staging point for emergency efforts in British Columbia being located in Calgary.

ON-SITE SEWAGE DISPOSAL FOR FARMWORKER ACCOMMODATION

F. Gingell: My question is to the Minister of Health. I've been in contact with your ministry for many months on behalf of farmers in the Fraser Valley who have been waiting long and patiently for new regulations on sewage disposal that will allow them to build accommodation for farmworkers on their farms. This issue is at the very heart of the viability of agriculture in the Fraser Valley. Will the minister commit today to make a public announcement on this issue within the next week so that the farmers will know if they need to bring any further pressure to bear to get resolution of this issue?

Hon. P. Ramsey: My ministry, the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and others are working with the B.C. Federation of Agriculture and public health units in the Fraser Valley and across the province to make sure that we have the right flexibility in regulations for proper on-site sewage disposal. That work is ongoing. As soon as we reach some new regulations that will accommodate both public health safety and the needs of a legitimate development, we will be announcing them.

The Speaker: Supplemental, member.

F. Gingell: I thank the minister for that. A series of test projects have been going on. My understanding is that those projects are now complete. The time for discussion is over. Let's get on with the job. There are many farm families concerned about their ability....

Interjection.

F. Gingell: Will the member from Prince George please allow me to finish?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. Put your question, hon. member.

F. Gingell: Will the minister please make the commitment to get on with the job and stop this eternal discussion about the issue?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I share with the member opposite the view that this is a serious concern for people who live in agricultural areas, and we are taking it seriously. I hope to have some conclusion in the near future to the process that we've instituted. I've got to say, however, that there is a serious health issue here. We must very clearly make sure that on-site disposal of sewage is done in a way that respects public health and safety. Quite frankly, acting quickly on this and then dealing with the consequences later would be just like the federal Liberal government, which slashes medicare funding and worries about the consequences later as well.

APPEAL PROCESS FOR MOTOR CARRIER COMMISSION DECISIONS

W. Hurd: A question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Prior to June 27, 1994, the secretary to the Motor Carrier Commission advised this minister that she had erred in the information that she provided in her decision. The minister wrote back to Mr. Hanson in a letter dated June 27, saying: "Order-in-council 0698 sets out the decision in this appeal in clear and unambiguous terms. The Motor Carrier Commission should take its direction from the order-in-council."

An Hon. Member: Who signed that?

W. Hurd: It was signed by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. She had acted on the wrong information in making this decision. It was pointed out to her by the Motor Carrier Commission, and her response was that the order-in-council should stand. What is happening in British Columbia when the Motor Carrier Commission can be held captive to an order-in-council by a minister of the Crown?

The Speaker: The minister took the previous question on notice.

An Hon. Member: They're running out of questions.

The Speaker: Order!

PATRONAGE APPOINTMENTS FOR NDP PROVINCIAL SECRETARIES

A. Warnke: It just dawned on me that the Mona Lisa reminds me of a reporter looking at a politician. Sorry about that, guys.

My question is for the Premier. It appears that the position of the NDP provincial secretary ensures job security through NDP political patronage. Hans Brown is collecting over $90,000 a year at the Labour Relations Board. Gerry Scott

[ Page 13930 ]

is working as a caucus communications director. Keith Reynolds was paid $350 a day to work on the Premier's Forum. Then, of course, there are the huge, untendered contracts awarded to Ron Johnson.

The Speaker: The question?

A. Warnke: The question to the Premier is: could the Premier tell this House...?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. The question?

Interjections.

A. Warnke: It appears that there is a sudden discharge from the bowels of government which they will never, ever get over.

Could the Premier tell this House what patronage appointment he is lining up for the current provincial secretary, Brian Gardiner? Would the Premier also clarify for British Columbians when it's okay to tell a white fib and how often he has fibbed to British Columbians?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I would like the Liberal caucus to let us know who they are using for their travel arrangements.

G. Farrell-Collins: Some contracts are tendered and some aren't. The Premier prefers the untendered kind, as we all know.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. Would the members please come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order! Would the hon. member please continue.

B.C. HYDRO STAFF INCREASE

G. Farrell-Collins: My question is to the Premier. B.C. Hydro documents that have been obtained by the Liberal caucus indicate that since the NDP took power, regular employees within the communications department known as corporate and aboriginal affairs have increased by 181 percent. Staff has shot up from 37 regular employees to 104 in just three and a half years. How can the Premier justify these outrageous staffing increases at B.C. Hydro at a time when they're continually applying for further rate increases?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I'll take that question on notice for the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro.

The Speaker: The question is taken on notice.

DESTRUCTION OF ELK IN THE KOOTENAYS

A. Warnke: My question is for the Minister of Environment. As the minister knows, last year there was some controversy with regard to the radio-collaring of elk, and as that minister must be fully aware, the elk that were left over have been shot and killed. Why hasn't this minister taken his responsibility of taking some action against those who are responsible and who have engaged in the killing of elk in the Kootenays?

Hon. M. Sihota: If the hon. member has any evidence as to who was responsible with regard to the killing of those particular elk, he should provide that information to the appropriate conservation officer.

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

The hon. member for Nanaimo rises on a matter?

D. Lovick: I rise on a point of order, if I might, Mr. Speaker. Because the convention in this chamber is that we do not rise on points of order during question period, I did not rise in my place at that point. I am disturbed, however, as I'm sure other members in this chamber must be, by two points. Questions that are asked of ministers that are not directly within the minister's area of responsibility are, as we all know, out of order. When the member has been called to order and when that answer has, in fact, been given, and then two speakers later, we have another question doing precisely that same thing, it seems to me that it is a flagrant violation of the rules of order.

[2:30]

Secondly, when a question has been taken on notice, as you better than any of us know, Mr. Speaker, that ends the matter. Instead, we have other members coming along behind asking the same question that has already been taken on notice. Mr. Speaker, I know that you in the chair are very reluctant to intervene during question period, as all of us are. But surely we must give notice to everybody in this chamber that the rules of this chamber do matter. This flagrant violation on an almost daily basis is unacceptable.

The Speaker: On the same point of order, the Opposition House Leader.

G. Farrell-Collins: I know that member is somewhat upset that we don't have the opportunity to ask him questions as a minister of the Crown. But I do know...

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

G. Farrell-Collins: ...the rules of this House, and I do know that when correspondence comes out of the minister's office with that minister's signature on it, the opposition as well as the public should be able to rely upon that minister to answer questions regarding that correspondence. It's clearly in order. If she chooses to hide behind the Deputy Speaker of the House, that's her choice. But we will continue to ask questions of ministers responsible.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

I want to thank both members for their submissions, and remind all hon. members that it does us all well to review the

[ Page 13931 ]

standing orders from time to time. In case members have forgotten, standing order 47A is very explicit with respect to the parameters of question period. I would hope that members would consult, from time to time, the standing orders.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of Supply A, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and Ministry Responsible for Multiculturalism and Human Rights; in the House, I call Committee of Supply on 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: Where we left off in the debate last day, the minister had described the process very briefly. When we are engaged in negotiations, he said that the opportunity will be provided for the public to view and interact somehow through the cable system, and so on. We may want to spend a few minutes on just how the public can actually be involved in these negotiations, because obviously the ministry will be primarily responsible in this coming year for ensuring that there is some sort of open process involved in these kinds of negotiations, which obviously will involve some expenditure.

I don't think it's necessary to get into the dollars and cents of that, although the cost is always uppermost in our minds. Obviously the process by which the public can be involved in the forthcoming negotiations is extremely important.

So that's where we left off, and after reviewing the answer, I would like the minister to elaborate on how groups can actually interact and be involved in the process. Many third-party interests -- we'll call them third-party interests, many different kinds of interests -- do want to have some sort of input where their industry or their interests are going to be affected. As the minister knows, there is certainly an impression that whatever is being negotiated is perceived at the present as being in secret.

We have dealt with that a little bit, but some of that impression is highly inaccurate, considering that we're nowhere near the negotiation stage. But I suppose the anxiety is nonetheless there for the interest groups, and therefore it's entirely appropriate to explain and describe just how that process works to ensure openness. From the principles stated last September at Whistler before the UBCM, the Premier and the minister made it very clear that openness is supposed to be the normal process here, and that in camera discussions -- secrecy -- are really the exception.

While I'm saying that, I want to put forward one view where people are anxious. By saying that secrecy or in camera meetings should be the exception, there is a concern that this is also a slippery slope whereby if you leave that avenue open for that to occur, it allows the possibility to occur, even if at the outset one's intention is to have that occur as little as possible. When we get to the short strokes of negotiations and get down to the fine point, all it needs is for one of the parties involved in the negotiations to request that in camera discussion and there will be every incentive to do that.

It's those kinds of questions that I would like to start off with today for the minister to elaborate on.

Hon. J. Cashore: We did canvass openness to some extent yesterday, and I would add that there are different aspects of the treaty-making process where openness is an issue. First of all, in seeking to consult with its constituents, the provincial government has a policy of openness in ensuring that that consultation is as wide-ranging as it can possibly be, as I outlined yesterday. That is facilitated through the regional advisory committees, the Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee and the treaty advisory committees, which relate to the councils and municipalities.

Openness is also in ensuring that various interest groups have an opportunity to express their concerns, often directly to their MLAs and cabinet ministers and to the members of the treaty negotiation team itself, in a variety of ways, including public meetings, public fora and other kinds of opportunities that are designed to enable dialogue, and sometimes debate and the answering of questions with regard to the large number of concerns that people very legitimately hold.

Openness relates to the way in which the province seeks to achieve the best possible input from the public in developing the mandates that eventually end up at the table. Openness is also the openness that we are seeing in protocols that are being agreed upon among the three parties at the treaty table.

I would take this moment to point out that last September, at the time of the Union of B.C. Municipalities convention at Whistler, there was a lot of reaction when the Premier announced the principles for openness in treaty negotiations. We did hear from some first nations that he should not have done that and that the three parties had to agree to it, etc. First of all, the government can decide for itself who it's going to include on its team and how it's going to consult with the public. That's not subject to negotiation with the other two parties. The province can decide how it will do that.

The other thing the Premier said at the time was that he wanted the other two parties at the table -- Canada and the first nations -- to engage in developing openness protocols. I am very pleased to say that that has been working extremely well. As I said yesterday, we now have, I believe, four openness protocols that have been negotiated. We are seeing that number rising, and those protocols are being negotiated as part of the process of enabling the first nations, Canada and British Columbia to get into the actual negotiation of agreements in principle.

As I said yesterday, the Nuu-chah-nulth negotiated an openness protocol prior to the framework agreement, and now they're into the framework negotiations. In some cases it is being negotiated as part of the framework negotiations.

There's an

article in the Vancouver Sun today by Stewart Bell, which is commenting on the openness in the Sechelt negotiations. I think it tells a very positive story about the way in which that is unfolding. I commend it to the hon. member. There is a line in that article, though, saying that only a minority of first nations have entered into openness protocols. The fact is that that could be misunderstood, because it is our intent -- not our hope, our intent -- that in virtually every negotiation there will be an agreed-upon protocol for openness prior to those negotiations beginning.

That will be a condition of this government for moving along to a further stage. Now, I don't think that's an ominous thing at all, because we are finding that first nations and Canada,

[ Page 13932 ]

especially first nations, are welcoming that opportunity with open arms. They are recognizing that if the general public doesn't understand the treaty-making process and doesn't have a real sense of confidence in the fact that their opinions are important and their ability to know what's going on is important -- if that's not there -- then that's going to hurt that confidence.

I can also say, hon. Chair, that I'm very proud of the fact that this process, which was launched by the Premier, is a process that is more open than any other process in the modern history of treaty-making, and I think we could actually make that comment on a global basis. I think we could look at modern treaty-making in other countries of the world, but certainly in North America this is the most open process in any jurisdiction. We can trace all that openness in negotiation back to the announcement that the Premier made in September.

[2:45]

A. Warnke: Just to follow up, there are a number of aspects I want to touch on, and we'll deal with those as separate questions. So the first supplementary to this is that there is an impression -- I can think of some TNAC groups that have certainly made the argument to me, and I suspect that if they've said it to me, they've said it to the minister, and this is where I want to seek some clarification -- that while the third party or interest group is allowed to send a member to the negotiations, essentially they cannot report back to the interest group or the third party that they represent.

That has been one complaint. In the minister's view, is that quite unwarranted? Perhaps the minister could clarify what seems to be the problem here.

Hon. J. Cashore: I am very pleased to report that since the hon. member and I were engaged in estimates a year ago, we have had the opportunity to remove that clause from any protocol relating to the way in which the Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee operates. As a matter of fact, in September when I learned that the Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee wished to raise that at one of their meetings, I cancelled the meeting I had planned to go to and flew back from Prince George to Vancouver to attend their meeting.

I announced to them that the province was taking the leadership between the two governments in recommending that that confidentiality requirement be removed, and that they would be completely free to raise issues with their constituents and seek their advice in the most open possible way with regard to the material that they were making use of.

It was interesting to note that after doing that in September, some of the members of TNAC actually had concerns when they saw the press coming into the room. It was the position of my officials that the TNAC meetings should be open to the media. There was one meeting where the media was not allowed in during the entire meeting, and on my instructions, that was not supported by my officials in the room.

Since then, at the most recent meeting, Minister Irwin, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, was present, and he spoke. Following that, I spoke, and the media was present. With regard to TNAC, the fact is that it is now as open as it could possibly be, and we have seen -- I wouldn't say great, but significant -- media interest in those meetings.

A. Warnke: Another aspect of this is that in making the decision or whatever resolution comes about, it appears that interest groups and third parties want to be part of the decision-making process. What I've heard from third parties and interest groups is that they do not demand to be part of the decision-making or the actual finalization of a treaty. Everyone recognizes that it would be cumbersome and impossible to reach a decision if that were allowed. By the same token, a question that could be addressed by the minister is: exactly how does the content of concerns by third parties become part of the input into the decision-making process?

There is a concern that whatever is expressed by a third-party interest may be heard but nothing more. We're obviously dealing with some sort of grey area, where it's difficult to draw a line between a black and white kind of decision. On the other hand, there is this kind of concern. To use the example the minister used of the mining industry yesterday -- there are others, like forestry and the ranching community.... If they are adversely affected, how can they really exercise themselves in such a way that they can have some sort of involvement on the decision, especially when it impacts on their own interests?

Hon. J. Cashore: Third-party groups have an opportunity to review and outline statements of interest with regard to the mandates that are being considered. As a mandate is being considered for eventually coming to the negotiating table, third parties have an opportunity to state their interests. We have received interest statements from third-party groups, both at the TNAC level and at the regional level, which not only go to the negotiators but get circulated to government and affected ministries, and they're also circulated to other interest groups.

At the Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee, which is dealing with the generic provincewide process, they have sectoral committees. Those sectoral committees receive government documents which outline options, considerations or possibilities for negotiating positions, and then they have a thorough opportunity to respond to that. Then those documents come to the Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee table -- the large table after their sectoral committee has reviewed it. At that table, they discuss it again.

Then their position is forwarded to the negotiating team as we work through the process of preparing mandates. That happens at both the regional level and the Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee level.

On top of that.... As I said before, that is the formal way in which sectoral groups have the opportunity to work on a document and have their critical evaluation of the document move forward into the area of decision-making with regard to what the mandate will be. But also we are, in a variety of ways, seeking input from the general public who may not be in one of those stakeholder groups or who may wish to ensure that their interests are heard through other avenues as well. All of those things are happening.

I just would like to point out in reference to this question of openness that I have a document in my hand which I would be glad to share with the hon. member. I'll just tell you what it contains. It contains, in one section, a list of the meetings that have been specifically held with local governments. It has the meetings that have been held with third parties, which may include local governments.

[ Page 13933 ]

I'll go back and start that again. Of the meetings specifically with local governments, there have been 78; with third parties, which may include local governments, there have been 169; there have been 40 open meetings and forums in various communities; with the Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee, there have been nine main-table meetings and 49 sectoral committee meetings; the regional advisory committees have met 38 times; the local advisory committees, ten times; and the treaty advisory committees, ten times. Those are lower numbers because they have just been getting going recently. Plus, there have been regional information meetings related to the 45-day meetings at stage 2.

Those meetings have been with first nations and held between January and June, 1994, with 30 mayors, 100 councillors and regional district board members, 100 representatives of interest groups -- forestry, mining, fishing, ranching, wildlife, aquaculture, business and community organizations. These meetings were held in Port Alberni, Port Hardy, Nanaimo, Duncan, Prince Rupert, Prince George, Terrace, Haida Gwaii, Williams Lake, Lillooet, Kelowna, Cranbrook, Vanderhoof, Vancouver, Smithers, Hazelton and Houston. Plus, there have been presentations to the September 1994 annual general meeting of the Union of B.C.

Municipalities. On top of that, I personally have held a number of meetings around the province and continue to do so, where people also have an opportunity to speak directly to a member of cabinet on these issues, as I know they do to my colleagues in areas where this is a very active issue.

With regard to accountability, we consult in a way that ensures that we incorporate their views. We expect that the Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee will be accountable to their members in making sure that they report back to their members what is happening at the Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee table, and that they report to the table the wishes of their members. We need to recognize that all of this is very new, but we have made enormous strides in setting up a process not equalled anywhere else. We think it is working well.

When something does go awry, we read about it in the media; when it is working well, we don't read about it. When you consider that legacy of meetings, that list of meetings that I just read -- and it's rising every day -- I think we can say that the vast majority of these events have not resulted in publicity which has been harmful to the process. The fact that this has been happening has, I think, been reassuring to the public. We will continue to read stories about the sore points, the issues that arise. I think we're dealing with a very important new process.

The media is doing a good job of ensuring that we do publicly discuss these issues as they arise.

A. Warnke: I'd like to follow up on the formal procedure. It's not necessarily that I have an obsession with it, but another concern and another sort of supplementary question to what we're discussing here does come to mind. A number of people have said: "Well, there are these members of TNAC and the regional advisory councils and all the rest of it sitting down with the negotiating team." I guess I'm looking for some reassurance that.... Again, this is from some people in different industries.

These various committees have been established -- the committees from the community or from different interests and so on. I'm wondering if the minister could elaborate as to how these representatives are defined. What is their mandate? Who can actually say we're giving them the mandate?

It stems from a concern I've heard that we really want to be reassured that when there are representatives, they are truly representatives of the industry or of the interest of the community that's being affected. What I would like to seek here is perhaps a rationalization or an elaboration on the representatives. How are we so certain that they have the mandate to represent their interests or their communities? What can reassure the public that these representatives are truly reflective of these various interests? I guess I'm really thinking of the community interest, especially where the public is generally involved.

Hon. J. Cashore: That's a very good question. We've learned a lot with the Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee. That committee was actually up and running when I came into the process. I was concerned, actually, that there were certain sectors that were interesting in their not being there. One of them, for instance.... If we're talking about economic sectors, I think health is an economic sector, and you could say so of education. I think that there are also others in the community who have an interest from a social justice perspective and who would think that they should have a voice there, too.

We have recently conducted a review with the Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee, and we're going to be making some recommendations coming out of that. Those recommendations will be discussed at the table.

[3:00]

In terms of the method of selecting, one way of answering that is to say that they are self-selecting. But the various sectors that exist within the province already do have organizations that represent them, like the Mining Association of B.C., the forestry COFI and those various kinds of entities that already exist. Part of the process in setting up the number of members on TNAC -- which, if I'm not mistaken, is 34; if I am, I'll be corrected.... They represent those sectors, usually based on an organization such as the B.C. Cattlemen's Association, and we haven't had any complaints about that.

We understand that that is inclusive of those stakeholders. There is one representing the B.C. Trappers' Association, the Guide-Outfitters' Association, the Outdoor Recreation Council, the B.C. Environmental Network, the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, the Federation of Labour, the Chamber of Commerce, the B.C. Fishing Resorts and Outfitters' Association, the Government Employees' Union, the B.C. Real Estate Association, the B.C. Shellfish Growers' Association -- oh, and the B.C.

Wildlife Federation is very significant there, -- the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines, the Business Council of British Columbia, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, the Cariboo Lumber Manufacturers' Association, the Interior Lumber Manufacturers' Association, the Northern Forest Products Association, the commercial fishing industry, the Communication, Energy and Paperworkers' Union of Canada, and so forth. A number of those sectors are represented there, and they kind of fall into place logically as coming out of an organization that is an existing entity.

In the regional advisory committees, as I said yesterday, depending on the site's specific needs, the site can be designed through consultation to reflect the needs of that community. We want input from the mayors, the chambers of commerce, the working people and those people who have an interest in the process. We want input from them on how best that advisory process can work. What we're finding is that within

[ Page 13934 ]

our regional advisory committees, we have people who are representative of organizations such as those. We're trying to broaden it and make it more holistic, so that some of the sectors that aren't presently represented in that way will be. I have also put on the record some pretty comprehensive information regarding the treaty advisory committees that deal with the municipal and regional districts' interests.

I would like to take this opportunity to mention some of the principles with regard to the openness issue.

These are the principles for openness in the treaty process that this government has successfully convinced the other parties are needed: that open negotiations be the rule; that all British Columbians must have an opportunity to provide meaningful input into the negotiating process; that no negotiating mandates be made public; that the public must be kept informed of negotiations; that all agreements in principle must be open for public review; and that all final treaty settlements must be ratified by the Legislative Assembly.

We are going to be releasing more information with regard to the actual steps that are involved from the beginning of the agreement-in-principle discussions right through to the ratification, and we will enable the public to comment on that process.

The hon. member has raised the question about public confidence in this process, and it is difficult to deal with public concern when that concern is based on statements that are not accurate. One we hear quite often, for instance, is that treaties are being negotiated in secrecy. Mike Scott states again today in the Vancouver Sun that the province and the federal government are negotiating treaties in secrecy.

He doesn't acknowledge, as this hon. member has been fair in acknowledging, that the process hasn't started yet to the point where you could say that anything is being negotiated in secrecy, because those negotiations have not started. They are just now starting with the Sechelt, and there's an

article in today's paper saying how open they are, so that one is not being negotiated in secret. It's the only one that's currently underway at the agreement-in-principle stage -- the only one. There have been no others.

When we have certain commentators and certain federal Reform politicians with an agenda and an axe to grind who want to repeat that incorrect statement over and over again, it is true that they are reported. By the privilege of their position, they somehow get the opportunity to do that. But it's unfair and it's dishonest. The fact is that we are just getting to the point, now that our first negotiations are going to be starting, that there are openness agreements.

Let's remember this, as I said awhile ago. The Stewart Bell

article today said that there's only a handful where there are openness agreements, and that's true. That's because we're just getting started, but I can tell you there won't be any negotiations at the AIP stage that are not open. We simply will not agree to that as a province. So the openness issue, incorporating these principles, is something that we insist on.

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

Leave granted.

L. Boone: It gives me pleasure today, on behalf of the member for Surrey-Green Timbers, to introduce to the House, and to ask you to make welcome, Ms. S. Dodd, who is a teacher from Cindrich Elementary School in Surrey. Ms. Dodd is here, the note says, with up to 60 grade 4 and 5 students from that elementary school. They are here, in particular, about grade 5 government and grade 4 history, so I think that it's very applicable that they should be listening to this debate on a very important area that affects our history here in British Columbia and certainly government in British Columbia as well. Would the House please make them welcome.

A. Warnke: Just to follow up on the most recent comments made by the minister.... I strongly suspect, where the impression sort of sets in about secrecy in negotiations, and all the rest of it.... Maybe with regard to the Nisga'a example.... The Nisga'a case is outside the treaty-making process, or the current Treaty Commission process, rather. It's operating in an entirely different direction and set of negotiations which began quite some time ago -- actually, in the last decade. Perhaps what's encouraging that kind of impression is the Nisga'a example. We will have an opportunity....

At least I hope to explore the Nisga'a case in more detail a little bit later on; but this particular aspect perhaps stems from the Nisga'a case. I'm wondering, just as a quick supplementary to the most recent comments, whether the minister would perhaps elaborate on that -- at least on that aspect of secrecy within negotiations, and so on. I'm not asking the state of the negotiations of the Nisga'a at this stage. We'll take that up later on.

Hon. J. Cashore: I appreciate the question. The member's quite right. I think that a lot of the mythology around openness emanates from a negotiation that is happening outside of the Treaty Commission process, which is the process that our government had a significant role in putting in place. As I noted the other day, this hon. member indicated this process as point No. 1 of the new Liberal strategy and policy with regard to aboriginal issues. The official opposition accepts the fact that British Columbia has entered into this process and is committed to supporting that process. So I do appreciate that.

I just want to point out I have a document here that lists the Nisga'a negotiations and some of the consultations that have taken place here, and some of the meetings that have taken place within the past year and a half: Nass Valley ratepayers -- 80 to 90 residents of Stewart; Stewart District Council; Stewart senior secondary school students; Terrace City Council; the CFTK radio call-in show, Terrace; the Terrace and district labour council; Prince Rupert senior secondary school students; and the humanities department of the Charles Hays Secondary School staff.

There have been regional information meetings with more than 30 mayors, a hundred councillors and regional district board members; a hundred representatives of interest groups -- forestry, mining, fishing, ranching, wildlife, aquaculture, business and community organizations; the Prince Rupert and Port Edward councils; members of the Skeena-Queen Charlotte Regional District; and so forth. The list goes on and on and on. I just started reading what happened in January and February; it goes right on to the present time, with an increasing volume of public meetings.

The fact is that there is a difference between the Nisga'a negotiations and the other negotiations that are taking place. There is a clause -- I believe it's clause 7 -- in the framework agreement that was authored by the former Minister of Native Affairs of the previous government. He wrote the clause, and he signed it. Since then, he's been going around accusing us of secrecy in the context of something that he drafted. I think I'd

[ Page 13935 ]

have to recognize that he's been a master as a politician, and to too great an extent he is getting away with it. But the fact is that I went on Rafe Mair's show and slapped a copy of that down on Rafe's table, and I have to tell you that he even had to swallow a couple of times, because he didn't believe it until he saw it. There it was in front of him in black and white. In fairness to Rafe, I understand that he did challenge the present leader of the Reform Party on that.

It's very convenient sometimes for a member in opposition to try to have it both ways, but they can't fool all the people all the time; it just comes down to that. The people aren't going to be fooled anymore on the fact that it was the former government that authored and signed the secrecy clause in the Nisga'a negotiating framework agreement.

We have done everything we can to open it up. I could spend the next half-hour reading out lists of names of meetings that have taken place, and consultations that Jack Ebbels and members of his negotiating team have been involved in, and the fact that we are doing everything we can to contend with that clause to inform the public and have public education. I've been up in the area on several occasions speaking to chambers of commerce and holding public meetings. I held a public forum in Terrace. We have been present in the area in a variety of ways, and in a very hands-on way.

I have personally gone in there to add some presence and also to listen carefully to what people have to say about these negotiations.

But let's remember that with the Nisga'a negotiations, there's a broad regional advisory process that's been in place for over three years. The six advisory committees are: general, government, forestry, mining, fish, and wildlife. Since August 1992 there have been 114 meetings with these regional advisory committees and another 34 meetings with other interest groups, for a total of 148. There are also public education activities, including presentations at high schools, open houses, trade shows, and radio talk shows.

The fact is that significant consultation has been taking place, and I think we all recognize that when it comes close to putting mandates together, members of the public in that region have had a great deal of input into the mandates our government is taking to that table.

[3:15]

A. Warnke: The argument has also been put forward that one way for the public to maybe have some input -- and this sort of goes along with this notion of openness -- is the idea of a referendum. Let me put the argument this way.... Speaking about Rafe Mair, as a matter of fact, I think he's been pretty articulate on the particular point that when going through negotiations, there is the opportunity for aboriginal people to monitor what has been going on.

In the last analysis, whatever is agreed on by first nations people goes back to the aboriginal peoples and ultimately they have some say or involvement, whether it's through a formal referendum process or an informal one, where everybody from the community, from the band, sits down and comes to some sort of consensus, or whatever the opportunity is.

The other side of the coin -- it's been expressed many times, and I'm sure the minister has had to confront this question many times, but it's an interesting one to follow up -- is that what is there is an opportunity for aboriginals to express themselves and perhaps even veto a resolution.... That opportunity is not available to the public.

Therefore what is perhaps essential -- minimally, on a regional basis; I don't know whether we can have that on a provincewide basis -- is some sort of referendum for non-aborginals to vote on whether they accept a particular treaty or resolution leading to a treaty, and all the rest of it. I wonder if the minister has some comments about the referendum option or the proposal for installing some kind of referendum. It is certainly being advocated, although I'm not sure exactly what form it will take.

I have heard it being advocated by some members of the federal Reform Party; I'm not sure about the provincial Reform Party. Occasionally I hear something, but I don't hear anything concrete about how that's to be instituted. I am wondering if the minister has some reflections on the proposal of some sort of referendum process for non-aboriginals.

Hon. J. Cashore: The fundamental point with regard to the voice of the citizen is that it be the most effective process possible, given the circumstances. We have to recognize that the circumstances of the three parties at the table vary greatly. If you take the first nation, usually it is a clearly defined group of people living within a very defined geographical area. There are some exceptions to that, but for the most part that is the case. If we look at the case of the Nisga'a, there are four villages confined within the Nass River Valley adjacent to the river.

There's a certain fact of geographic cohesiveness and definition there that's a reality. When it comes to the point of ratification, it makes sense to have a process that would enable each of those people to be able to vote on it -- to be able to have a say with regard to how they feel about that. But with regard to those whom the federal and provincial governments represent, we are dealing with a complex, scattered, diverse community that does not have that kind of community cohesion as a starting point.

Let's start by looking at the situation with Canada. Canada is there representing the taxpayers all across Canada. Imagine that in the settlement there's a cash component. If the leader of the Reform Party is to argue that all of those who have an interest in this should have a vote, then he has to tell us where he would draw the line and how he would explain to somebody in Corner Brook, Newfoundland, that they can't vote on it, when he says that somebody, say, in Peace River South can.

It seems to me that's a rather crass play to local interests without recognizing the reality, and that is that taxpayers are taxpayers. In fact, in British Columbia we have for far too long been very upset to see provincial tax dollars going off to other parts of the country without any apparent accountability. We are experiencing a lot of federal off-loads at the same time that we are seen in some ways as one of the have provinces. We have a lot of concerns in British Columbia about seeing that happen. If he is going to call for a referendum, he has to be able to answer that question.

Once you've gone down that route, how would the federal representatives explain to their taxpayers that they're going to limit it with regard to who those people are?

The same thing applies provincially, if it's in a particular region. How are you going to define that region? Are you going to say it's in the region that's defined by the outline of the claim? That won't work, because in many cases the people in the functional economic areas are outside the actual geographic definition of the claim. So there are people who are impacted who don't necessarily live within a defined area. Then there are the interests of people who may not live directly in that region who nevertheless feel impacted, such as fishers -- people who work out on the fishing grounds in the

[ Page 13936 ]

summer but live in Richmond, for instance. That would be another example. If we could get them to define how they would draw that line, then by definition it would exclude some people.

If that were to happen, they might answer and say: "We want all British Columbians to vote on it." But that would be an admission that they were being obstructionist, because they know that referendums, when they are used in that way, would simply be divisive; they would set British Columbians against British Columbians. It would focus, in a very negative way, on that which would almost guarantee that this issue would not be resolved. But the most powerful argument in all of this is that for British Columbians and for all Canadians, a referendum as advocated by the Leader of the Third Party is too little too late.

We have built a process which I've been outlining as a result of the questions that this hon. member has been asking. It requires that the consultation be at every stage of the process. When I say every stage, the most important stage is the one that takes place before the negotiations even begin. Once negotiations do begin, there needs to be consultation at that stage to deal with feedback from other parties. We need to get responses at each stage -- for instance, prior to the framework agreement being negotiated and then after the framework agreement is negotiated.

Different stages of the negotiations on the agreement in principle are conducted and deal with a wide range of topics, such as access, taxation, fisheries, health care, delivery of child care services, how the justice system will relate, and on and on. Then we get into the more major issues that have to do with lands and resources. All of those issues are topics that require very knowledgable public input at every stage of the process. Referenda are simply obstructionist in this context.

Those who advocate it do not, to my knowledge, ever come forward with a practical way of saying how that could be delivered and how that could lead to a logical conclusion.

There are some other points that can be made. One is that it will result in ongoing, protracted negotiations that never end, and that it will be very difficult to determine which questions to ask and how to craft a referendum when we're talking about a document that will be several pages thick.

The other thing is that in thinking about the concerns taxpayers have about expenses, this would be extremely costly to taxpayers for something that would fail to deliver effective results. It's not going to achieve the certainty that the treaty negotiations hopefully will achieve. I would like to say to the hon. member that I'm pleased to see that when he outlined his policy the other day, he did not include that as one of the points.

A. Warnke: We've actually been talking a little bit about how the public has input. I suppose another side to openness is, to use the cybernetic term, outputs -- that is, how do we convey information to the public? Perhaps this has been the experience in recent years with the Charlottetown accord referendum and the Meech Lake process.

Perhaps this is just a public reflection on government in general: "What kind of information is really being given to us so that we really understand the issue, especially when we're dealing with the area of land claims and land claim settlements?" Whatever resolution comes at the end of the process -- and not only at the end of the process but during the process -- the public wants to be informed. They want to be informed in a context of: "How will our lives be different? How will we be affected?"

So what I want to explore briefly with the minister, in the context of openness, is: how do we go about essentially informing the public? What kinds of initiatives are being taken by the government to inform the public, specifically in terms of at least trying to convey as much information as possible on how the public will be affected? Later on, I suppose at the next stage, we'll get into some of the issues as to how the public feel they're going to be affected in terms of private property and what not; I'll explore those in detail. But what I'm looking at here is essentially the process. How is the public going to be informed and knowledgable?

I believe personally, that information and the knowledge that we have builds public confidence that they've heard everything and that nothing has been disguised or distracted or whatever; they've heard everything, they're confident in what they've heard, and they understand how it will impact upon them. Through that kind of confidence, I think we might achieve some sort of certainty -- which is again something else we will explore a little later.

So it's the flip side of this question of openness that I would like to explore with the minister. I'm wondering if he has any comments in that regard.

Hon. J. Cashore: Before I answer that, I just want to point out that in the ministry we have budgeted $1.13 million for public consultation. Other land ministries, such as the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Mines, have other amounts budgeted for consultation as well, recognizing how important that is.

Now, I see the question that the hon. member just asked in two components. I would say the first component is: how do we get this education, knowledge and awareness out there in the present situation, which is in a treaty negotiation phase? In other words, how do we deal with the information that needs to get out there to enable people to come to terms with the actual work of treaty negotiations -- the actual substance of it, the actual positions. I see that as the first part of the question.

I see as the second part of the question: how do we share with the public a vision of what the post-treaty period will be like that would say it's all been worthwhile? I think there are those two components to that question, and I do recognize that they are interconnected.

First of all, through communications in a variety of ways, we are seeking to assist British Columbians to become more aware of all the reasons for negotiating treaties. Therefore we have to address those reasons. We have to address the reasons, I think, in the context of history and in the context of the current legal framework. Perhaps the most important context -- this is not a negative; I see this as positive -- is that of enlightened self-interest.

[3:30]

I think people throughout the province are aware of the fact that we have some problems in this province, given the fact that we haven't had a very good and honourable relationship with the people of the first nations throughout our history. We know there are certain historical factors that have to do with that, and I don't want to get into that. I don't think it's

[ Page 13937 ]

a matter of any kind of guilt, shame or ideology. It's a matter of having a sense of justice, recognizing that the people of British Columbia seek to achieve justice but that they seek to do so in a knowledgable and effective way. Therefore, to achieve that, it means that we are seeking to build a new and honourable relationship.

One of the first things that we have to be communicating more effectively is how the process works, why there is a treaty negotiation table and what the roles of the various parties are. We're doing that in a number of ways. We've set up 1-800 telephone lines; we're making use of the Knowledge Network, cable video and a variety of public consultations -- as I said before, I won't go into all the consultation processes again.

We have also been involved in sending out information sheets throughout the province, outlining historic aspects with regard to treaty-making and also the legal framework and other parts of the treaty-making process; we've sent out a number of these fact sheets. We've also taken out ads in weekly and daily newspapers around the province to advertise events that are coming up and to put out information with regard to the process. We've also made our negotiators very much available to the media to comment on the unfolding events.

With regard to the post-treaty stage and the vision for the future, if I had my way, much more of the dialogue would be around that, because then we could work back from those vision concepts to the practicalities of how you achieve that vision at the table. For instance, part of my vision is that negotiating modern treaties in an honourable way will lead to a greater degree of self-determination, self-appreciation and self-esteem, and it will also lead to a new relationship, an interdependent relationship, between first nations peoples and non-first nations peoples. When we can achieve that, we can see the opportunity for strengthened regions.

In the cash settlement part, especially the funds that would be coming from the federal government, we can see that it would actually bring some of those federal tax dollars into that area. Granted, there are also B.C. tax dollars, but again, I think that would be very significant when people saw how stimulating this could be with regard to the businesses in an area. I suggest that we might try to get some business people from Whitehorse, for instance, to come and talk in British Columbia about how they have viewed that part of the settlement of the Yukon treaties.

Also, we have a very fast-growing population of young people. We want them to be able to look to the future with pride, and we want to see a relationship with first nations young people in which they are taking their places in universities, colleges and trades schools, and becoming a part of the workforce, and being able to work in those industries that will emerge in their communities.

We have seen examples such as the Burns Lake mill, which goes back a number of years now, where an aboriginal industrial operation is employing a large number of people -- actually, I believe, more non-aboriginal than aboriginal people. This is because of a joint venture, which involved some initial assistance from government, but which has had ongoing effective partnerships between first nations and other businesses. They've managed that business extremely well, and it's a real model for the way in which these types of partnerships can work.

Also, because of the certainty, we can see opportunities for more investment coming into the area. As I said in my opening remarks, we have been advised, on the basis of studies, that over a billion dollars in investment has not come into the province because of the uncertainty over the land question.

Quite often, when something comes up such as the problems that we were able to facilitate and resolve with regard to Apex, sometimes it's not recognized in the eyes of the public that that is a situation outside the treaty process. It's dealing with an historic fact, which is a road that goes through an Indian reserve, that has not been resolved, when it should have been resolved by previous federal and provincial governments. That situation is sometimes seen as an indication of the problems.

But, hon. member, it is an indication of the kinds of problems that treaties can overcome, because there's an opportunity to take the uncertainty of a situation like that, put it on the negotiating table and resolve it to the satisfaction of all parties.

So the fact that over 65 percent -- and rising -- of aboriginal residents of B.C. have entered the treaty process through the 43 statements of intent that have been filed is an indication that the vast majority of the people of the first nations want to be part of these negotiated solutions that bring them interdependently into full participation in the Canadian and B.C. economies.

Their vision, as I understand it, is that this would address the issues of unemployment and poverty, the high infant mortality rate and the despair that we see among teenagers -- we see all too much of this among all teenagers in the province, but the statistics are high among aboriginal teenagers -- so there can be a sense of hope for the future.

This would enabled them to participate in a dynamic culture while at the same time being able to have the sense that what they are doing, how they are experiencing education and how they are developing their business is determined by their own understanding of who they are and where they fit within the unfolding chapters of their cultural development.

[D. Streifel in the chair.]

It is also a vision in which there would be certainty for business and industry. There would be renewed business and investment in British Columbia. We would see new hope for the very real creativity that exists in all of our young people, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, which would be part of that emerging economy.

A. Warnke: Just to follow up on that, I appreciate the minister providing a vision of how he thinks our lives will be different in the future. If I specifically asked that question, I would have been clearly out of order, so I appreciate the elaboration in that direction. I think it is quite relevant, as a matter of fact, to have a sense of where we are going in the future.

The minister actually touched on an area in his remarks that I think needs exploration. Since the minister mentioned it, I'll just follow up on it. The fact is that 43 statements of intent have been filed. That does represent nearly 65 percent, or two-thirds, of the aboriginal people in the province. There is some concern about those bands that have not filed statements of intent. I believe we're up to.... The total number of bands in British Columbia is something like 198 or 199 or 197. However you define it, it's approximately that. What's more important is that 35 percent of the aboriginal population have not entered the Treaty Commission process.

[ Page 13938 ]

I want to remain optimistic. Obviously the Treaty Commission process has galvanized aboriginals and non-aboriginals in a direction whereby we can address these outstanding issues. I want to remain optimistic, and I know the minister wants to remain optimistic; we are both going to be optimistic that more and more statements of intent will be filed, and that will represent more of the aboriginal population. Nonetheless, there is a concern that there will still be a significant proportion of aboriginals outside the Treaty Commission process.

First of all, there are a few questions that I want to pursue here. The first of those questions is a general view of the state of the outstanding one-third of our aboriginal population that has not filed a statement of intent. Where do we go, and what do we do about those who are not going to file a statement of intent? We can say this with some confidence, because a number of aboriginal leaders in this province have made it very clear that they do not want to be part of the Treaty Commission process. So I'm wondering if the minister would care to comment in general, then we'll follow up with some other questions.

Hon. J. Cashore: Based on the 43 statements of intent that we have received, my estimate is that that represents about 65 percent of the aboriginal population. The question is: what about the other 35 percent? I would point out that the B.C. Treaty Commission has done some projections. They've done a study on what they think will happen during this year. In that study they project that by the end of this fiscal year the total statements filed will increase from 43 to 62. If it turns out that they're right, they project that there could be up to above 80 percent of first nations populations represented within that process by the end of this fiscal year.

The hon. member asked about those who are outside the process. In seeking to develop new, honourable and productive relationships with first nations, it has been the position of our government that not all first nations agree with the tripartite treaty-making process. We think that it's remarkable, and indicative of an amazing success, that this process has been far more successful than had been envisaged by the task force. The task force had predicted that there would be fewer than 30 statements of intent filed, so I think that this is really remarkable.

If we think about it in the context, these are people who want to become more fully a part of British Columbia; more fully a part of Canada. This is a very positive indication about the vision of these people and the recognition that while we hear some very expansive comments about the land and their relationship to the land and all this, in the interests of certainty they're willing to negotiate and see that result in this process.

What about the others that are outside of that process? Let's remember that we think a number of them will come in. We think there'll be more of them in this process, and as I've just said, it could be up to 80 percent of the population. But there are still others who aren't in the process. And you're right, hon. member, there are about 197 bands. We think there may be some who are with the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs who see the process as bilateral.

In other words, they would see one approach being that they would negotiate directly with the federal government and that any negotiations with the provincial government would be after that.... Not necessarily after -- as a matter of fact, we have entered into some negotiations with the Union of BCIC. For instance, there has been a successful negotiation around education funding that was signed by the Minister of Education which deals with the fact that federal education dollars follow aboriginal students, and with trying to make sure that those dollars are used most effectively.

So we are in a situation where we recognize that there can be a mutual interest at any time between the provincial government and the first nations to come to terms with an issue of mutual importance. But we think that most of the bands that come within the UBCIC process that choose not to go into the Treaty Commission process seek what I would call a double-bilateral.

They would have negotiations with the federal government, try to get things resolved there, and when it comes to the fact that the province has underlying title to the land -- that the province owns the land and has the responsibility with regard to lands and resources -- that would be worked out later. That's also a possibility.

[3:45]

I think we also have some other bands that don't come under either one of those umbrellas. Again, there is a need to respect the fact that they have their own perspectives on government and self-government and that sort of thing, but in some instances there are some very challenging issues. We are seeking to reach out and find common ground and an opportunity to be in dialogue.

A. Warnke: Just to follow up on that, if the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs are proceeding on one level with the kind of negotiations they want -- and the minister is quite correct to suggest that UBCIC really want to negotiate directly with the federal government -- while at the same time there is the Treaty Commission process, some concerns have been expressed to me that this has the potential for, I suppose, impairing or interfering with trying to resolve these issues.

I guess I'm seeking some sort of reassurance from the minister that despite the fact that there is what the minister calls a double-bilateral here, it doesn't mean: "Here is option 1, and if you don't like it, here is option 2." We do not want to provide an incentive that if you don't get what you want down option 1, perhaps somewhere down the line we can opt out for option 2. I want some reassurance from the minister that the direction the UBCIC is going in is not going to impair or interfere with the process; that's number one.

The minister seemed to make clear, from the statement he just made, that in fact it's possible that the UBCIC direction is compatible with the Treaty Commission process. I just want to get that on the record.

Hon. J. Cashore: With regard to the two processes, the Treaty Commission process and then our relationship with UBCIC and those other bands that don't fit into any of those umbrellas.... First of all, the fact is that our relationship with the UBCIC will not interfere with the process. There's a simple reason for that. We have budgeted financial resources and human talent to address the Treaty Commission process unencumbered by other issues; we have focused a portion of government resources directly on participating in moving the Treaty Commission process forward.

I might add that there are some difficulties -- growing pains -- around that, in that a lot more bands filed statements of intent than we had anticipated. So our government is taking

[ Page 13939 ]

a position at the generic treaty-making level, saying we want some economies of scale so we can make the resources that we've budgeted for this work well. Therefore we are seeking to achieve some work on a regional basis that would bring together some of the various bands which have filed separately in the Treaty Commission process. We're trying to manage that in the context of good stewardship. But this will not interfere with the UBCIC, and any attention it gets from government will not interfere with this Treaty Commission process.

I would have to say that this is a major work of government, and the fact that it is so means we've actually put a lot more eggs into that basket. We've made an intentional decision, because of the willingness of the First Nations Summit and the federal government to get on board, to enable a process that can work and where we can make headway. That's where the major effort and resources are going. I think it has demonstrated its success by the fact that we have predictions that there could be 80 percent of the aboriginal people in the process by the end of this fiscal year.

Even the fact that there's about 65 percent in it now is very, very significant. We will continue to honour our relationship with the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, but that will not interfere with our other ongoing work.

A. Warnke: I also want to touch briefly.... Since we're on the topic of aboriginal bands that are outside the Treaty Commission process, I suppose, there's one in particular that I want some comment on: the McLeod Lake band. Just as a brief backgrounder, and I'm sure the minister is very well acquainted with the issue, the McLeod Lake band essentially missed an opportunity -- that's one way to describe it; or just because of some extraordinary circumstances, by our standards, many decades ago -- to become a part of the Treaty 8 negotiations in northeastern British Columbia.

As described by the minister, we have very few treaties in the province. Some of them involve the Douglas treaties in the lower part of Vancouver Island, and then there is Treaty 8 in the northeastern part of British Columbia. It's an interesting story, if time allows. Oh yes, I've got a few minutes.

The way it has been described to me is that at the time in the second decade of this century when the McKenna-McBride commission went out to essentially solicit names of who belonged to the McLeod Lake band, they chose an inopportune time -- just when they were trapping, hunting and that sort of thing, and were really away from their various communities and really not part of the original negotiations. Now we have a situation where the McLeod Lake band actually wants to be a part of Treaty 8.

From some vantage points around the province, I suppose some aboriginal bands believe the McLeod Lake band is headed in the wrong direction. But in one way, it's up to each band to figure out where they want to go, and the McLeod Lake band have made it very clear in all the correspondence between the negotiators on the issue and to both federal and provincial governments that as far as they are concerned, they want to move rapidly into self-sufficiency, and they want some finality of their situation. To put a bottom line to it, they really want to be a part of Treaty 8.

As I understand it, when there was that opportunity somewhere along the line, no finality to this came about -- as a result of one of the other line ministries. I believe it was the Ministry of Forests; I'm glad to hear that the minister is here as well to listen to this. But as a result of a decision taken by the Ministry of Forests with regard to the McLeod Lake band, they were not able to become part of Treaty 8. That's a very brief thumbnail sketch, I suppose, of the background of this.

Interjection.

A. Warnke: I'm wondering whether the minister would care to respond to this. I note that the Minister of Forests just actually did say something; maybe he would want to clarify the situation. But I'm wondering if the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs would care to comment on this particular situation, considering that it involves a band that is one of the few outside the Treaty Commission process.

Hon. J. Cashore: I just want you to know that if the Minister of Forests wishes to comment on this, based on his experience with this file, I would certainly be happy were he to do that. However, I did hear him say that much of the comment that the hon. member was making was out of date. I would like to just bring him up to date on some of the recent developments with this.

First of all, it should be realized that the McLeod Lake negotiations are not negotiations under the B.C. Treaty Commission; . that's the first thing. It's a very confusing situation and very complex all throughout the province. We are getting some focus in the B.C. Treaty Commission on the fact that we do not have treaties in most of British Columbia.

This is a treaty adhesion issue. In other words, Treaty 8, which was negotiated.... I don't have the exact year. Again, somebody will probably give me that in a minute -- it might even be the Minister of Forests. But I think it was around 1905.

Hon. A. Petter: The early twentieth century.

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, I believe it was in 1905. With some of those post-Confederation treaties, as with other treaties, sometimes the language was not all that clear with regard to who all was included. This is a treaty adhesion issue. Therefore it's an issue that came under a treaty that was negotiated with the federal government, and therefore it's the federal government's primary responsibility. Again, you wouldn't know that, given some of the coverage this issue has had. But it's first and foremost a federal responsibility.

The federal government has a responsibility, with regard to every aspect of this treaty, to enable it to be fulfilled. I say that because one of their major responsibilities has to do with the cost of it coming out of any negotiated arrangement involving the provincial government. So that's the first thing: this is a federal responsibility.

We're there to help resolve it, because we have an interest in the lands and resources of the province. Our province is involved, limited to the land discussions, to assist Canada to meet its obligation. The province is driving a hard bargain on behalf of the interests of the citizens of British Columbia. I think that's a very important point; we're driving a hard bargain.

You know, hon. member, it's interesting. In some of the criticism that has come this way out of this situation, you get it coming both ways. One is that, as you're moving towards resolution, sometimes the opposition -- I'm not saying this member, but sometimes members of the third party -- will

[ Page 13940 ]

say: "You're going too fast. You're giving too much away." Then if the negotiator for the McLeod Lake band says the province is stalling, they say: "You're stalling. You're not letting us get this thing resolved."

The fact is that we're driving a hard bargain. We're not going to sign anything if it's not in the interests of the province. Sometimes when it's taking a little longer than we might like it to, it should be seen as a credit to the province that we are driving a hard bargain. That's not to try to jam the McLeod Lake people, but it's to try to represent the interests of British Columbians, and to do that well.

[4:00]

Now, the province has reached agreement with the band on the contentious issue of forested land selections, but this is subject to consultation with third parties. And there are other issues. As Mr. Andrew Schuck has said recently and publicly, we're very close to an AIP, and he suggested that we're dragging our feet and not signing it. The fact, which he knows very well, is that the federal government is having a lot of difficulty in coming to terms with its own memorandum of understanding on cost-sharing.

Until they do that, it is going to be a major concern, because they negotiated a memorandum of understanding on cost-sharing with their eyes wide open, using their phalanx of officials from Ottawa to work on it. They negotiated it with the former Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and the former deputy minister, and they agreed. Now it appears that they're having second thoughts about the cost-sharing memorandum of understanding they negotiated, but we are seeking to close this, and we think we are very close.

We think that there has been excellent progress in the negotiations, and we expect the federal government to fulfil its responsibilities here.

A. Warnke: I thank the minister for those remarks. There is an impression that the Ministry of Forests was somehow involved and kind of took action on the allocation of land involving the forest industry, and that somehow the Ministry of Forests was the problem here. I'm getting an impression that the federal government is primarily responsible for this, so I want to follow this up a bit. I won't belabour the point, but I'm still wondering about this accusation that the Ministry of Forests essentially took the action to delay any progress made on the McLeod Lake band situation.

Hon. J. Cashore: I don't think the Forests estimates have yet been before either Committee A or Committee B. I know the member will be asking this question at that time, and I believe the Minister of Forests will be able to go into more detail. It's my view and my position that the Ministry of Forests has conducted itself in an exemplary way on this issue. It has not been a case of dragging of feet; it has been a case of recognizing the value of the land that is being selected and being able to apply that appropriately in terms of the total arrangement that we have within this deal.

The fact is, though, however people may want to characterize what has happened in achieving that forested land selection, the McLeod Lake Band and the province have reached an agreement on forested land selection, and that meets the representative profile of the treaty adhesion area. I might add that the band has accepted the application of the Forest Practices Code -- we negotiated this -- and the requirement that timber in the settlement area will be made available on local markets. That means no exports. When the details of this deal come out, we think everybody will agree that it is a very good deal.

It's resolving an issue, as this hon. member has pointed out, which goes back into the mists of time.

We are seeking to achieve the certainty of getting this done. I also recognize that the McLeod Lake band is exemplary in industrial development. They have some operating companies up there that are functioning well. They want to be part of the solution, and they want this to be a hopeful thing for their people, too. It is with the greatest of respect for them that I remind you that our government has been very firm in these negotiations -- some would say hard-nosed -- and we think that's what brings about the best possible result.

A. Warnke: What I would like to turn to now are some of the concepts that are going to have quite an impact on the ministry as it goes about its business in the coming year. A comment at the outset is perhaps appropriate. I've said that the role of the minister is an awkward one if, theoretically, the minister is supposed to represent the interests of aboriginal people before cabinet, the executive council and one's own caucus.

There is that role of representing aboriginals on the one hand, and on the other hand, when we get into discussing where the government of British Columbia and the province of British Columbia are headed in the future with regard to resolving some of these outstanding issues, the minister has to represent British Columbians when negotiating with both the federal government and the various first nations. I recognize that very awkward role of the minister. He might want to make a comment on that; it's entirely up to him.

Nonetheless, as we proceed to negotiate with the federal government and the first nations, there are some principles or concepts that are put forward and that have been announced by the minister and the Premier of the province that need clarification.

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

I'll begin with one of them: the firm commitment that private property is not on the table. It is a principle from our side as well. What I would like to explore with the minister, however, is that private property means quite different things. I'm wondering if the minister has a pretty clear definition of what constitutes private property. This is an extremely important issue. It was one that I raised last year in the last session, and I want to thank the minister for responding to it. It was a question I asked in question period, and it was taken on notice.

The minister did respond in writing after the session was adjourned last year. I think, for the record, it's entirely appropriate to define, to describe, exactly what constitutes private property, especially as there is so much concern. Maybe some of it's mistaken, but there is so much concern, especially in the northern and eastern parts of our province, where negotiations may lead to a treaty that is perceived by a number of people as having some direct effect on them and that would include private property.

The one example I put forward on Friday was the case on Southwest Marine Drive in Vancouver, where the federal government had entered into a 30-year lease, beginning in 1965, that will actually terminate this year. Certainly that is beyond the purview of this minister. I'm not going to demand any comment from the minister on that, because that is exclusively under the jurisdiction of the federal government, as I understand it. On the other hand, I use it as an example whereby people have leased land, and perhaps their lease was just too

[ Page 13941 ]

small -- $400 or $500 a year and that sort of thing. On the other hand, it jumped to a minimum of $30,000 a year.... If there is no renegotiated settlement between the federal government and the Musqueam reserve, what we'll see are leases being $30,000 or $35,000 a year, in which people have.... Many people there have absolutely no means of paying that kind of outstanding and outrageous lease, despite the fact that the legal case can be made that they would have to pay it if they still want to retain their homes on that land. I use this as an example because it illustrates the anxiety that people have about private property.

This is one type of private property. There are other kinds of private property: forest leases and mining leases, and so on. There's a great deal of uncertainty and anxiety about what is on the table -- how people are going to be impacted as a result of the establishment of a treaty. Private property is one of these areas. Private property can actually mean many things, and I think what is appropriate for our purposes here is to explore exactly what the definition of private property is. Last Friday I laid out a very brief definition of private property.

I'm wondering whether the minister also has some principles, or a definition of private property, as well. If we can, I'd like to explore that for a little while.

Hon. J. Cashore: I recall the hon. member making the point of the Liberal policy on Friday during his opening statement. The provincial position is that private property which is fee simple property is not on the table. It is also our position that where lands that may be subject to lease or licence or other encumbrance are to be discussed, they will not be discussed at the table until there have been thorough consultations with the affected or potentially affected parties.

Let us bear in mind that when a first nation puts a land area on the table, they are putting land on the table which goes beyond their wildest dreams with regard to where they say their traditional territory was -- to the extent that there are often overlaps. As has been pointed out, if you add it all up, it could add up to a percentage greater than the province. When you see fee simple land is not on the table, that means that for the Squamish, the Musqueam and the Capilano, most of the territory they would identify is now fee simple land in Vancouver, Burnaby, Richmond and places like that.

We all agree that's not on the table.

When the hon. member raises the policy point that it won't even be possible to discuss at the table those other lands, it does raise the question: "Well, then, what lands are there left that will be available for discussion at the table?" I think that is a very significant question. I realize it is not my role to put questions to the hon. member, but I think that as we get into engaging this concept -- which I see as primarily an attempt to try to play to some of the concerns that have been expressed from certain sectors of the community -- it's a slippery slope.

It's very difficult to take that position, and then take the number one position that is in the hon. member's list of 11 points. I think you will find that members of the First Nations Summit are going to argue with you very vigorously that you are inconsistent there. I just take this opportunity to point that out.

We believe, however, that with any land in the province that has any type of a licence or a lease, or any kind of encumbrance, whether it involves a guide-outfitter, a trapper or an aboriginal person from another community or from another area, whether it involves a forest licence or a mining licence, whether it involves leased recreational property or whatever it may be, we believe that our responsibility is to do everything that we possibly can to ensure that those people are not impacted. We have said, and I say, that if that is unavoidable, then we will ensure that there is fair compensation.

We do not believe that it is possible to maintain the integrity of the treaty-making process by going beyond the position of stating unequivocally that private property is not on the table.

[4:15]

The hon. member did refer to the situation in the Marine Drive area, which was negotiated by the federal government with the developer that was to put up those houses in that very high-end neighbourhood -- high-end in terms of the cost of the houses, and in terms of architectural design and all the amenities of that community. At that time there were a great many people writing letters to the editor and expressing concern about the deal that the federal government had used to hoodwink those people, where they were only getting $300 for that land from these people who were of a certain financial category.

Then, all of a sudden, we found that the 20 years, or whatever it was, was up and then legally it became possible that there could be assessments of $15,000, I think. People have rightly expressed concern over that sudden change.

I just want to use that as an opportunity to comment on another point in the hon. member's 11-point platform, and that's a point that talks about finality. I think that when we're talking about finality in treaty-making, we have to look at it in the context of contract law. Usually, if, having reached a final agreement, something gets looked at again and is opened up for further discussions, one would assume that it happens because it's a mutual interest. I refer to the example with the Musqueam to make my point; it would appear that now, given today's circumstances, it could be argued that those negotiating on behalf of the Musqueam negotiated the better deal.

So, if somebody such as the Leader of the Third Party wanted to stand up and ask, "Will you guarantee that these treaties will be final, and that they'll never be subject to any change, even on the basis of mutual interest?" the comeback would be: "Are you saying that in the case of where the deal is working out better for the non-first nation, you wouldn't want to be able to seek having it looked at again in those circumstances?" Surely what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

I think we have to get away from the rhetoric when we're talking about finality, come up with practical solutions and recognize that these are simply negotiations, in the way they might be negotiations with the gas industry, a municipality or the forest industry. If it's in a mutual interest that at some point in the future an element of a treaty was looked at again, then why would we want to take that opportunity away, especially when it may be in our own self-interest?

A. Warnke: I have a feeling that a debate is about to break out, but I certainly appreciate the comments made by the minister. I think that in the last analysis, obviously what is put forward by the various aboriginal people.... There is a part there where whatever overlaps of territory exist -- in terms of claims, that is -- are to be worked out by aboriginals and so on. Nonetheless, there are communities -- and we've described very briefly the situation in the lower mainland --

[ Page 13942 ]

such as Terrace and Smithers, in which the claim actually encompasses the whole, or part, in some cases, of their cities and so on.

What people really want is some sort of confidence that when they're on land and they establish their homes, businesses or whatever, there is some certainty down the road as to their future. I suppose that in that kind of context, again, the Musqueam case illustrates what sort of anxiety exists among people there. When we talk about finality, obviously what we're looking for is something that has some certainty at the end of the day so that people can predict what they can have in terms of an investment and what they can have in terms of establishing a home, and all the rest of it.

But I would like to follow up a bit on this notion of private property. There is a side to it with regard to leases as it applies to, say, forest licences, where there is obviously some sort of investment. I'm wondering if the minister would like to address private property in that context, and whether private property is not on the table. There was a brief mention of it by the minister that I have in my notes -- but in what context? I believe the minister said that leases would not be discussed at the table, but only until there is some consultation with affected parties.

In my mind, I guess, it's just a little unclear and perhaps the beginning of another slippery slope. Could the minister just elaborate on that?

Hon. J. Cashore: I didn't say that leased land would be defined as private property and therefore not on the table, but I did say that there would be consultation with the leaseholder prior to any discussion of any such land. Take, for instance, a forest company's lease. The fact is there's a lot of land in the province that is under tree farm licence -- assuming that the discussion is on that issue -- and so the interests of the company that is referenced in the tree farm licence and also of the workers would be two very primary considerations.

It would be absolutely essential that they be closely consulted and, hopefully, that they would have very clear input into the kinds of positions the province would be taking forward to deal with their interests.

Also, I would mention that there's a very real opportunity when people really recognize the possibilities that there are in the treaty negotiation process, that the various parties can come up with solutions -- again, in mutual interest. Sometimes I think the negotiators would serve the process well to set up a side table and ensure that those various parties are there when it's getting close on an issue -- quite often they'll come up with a solution before anybody else will. So I think the point about closely consulting with those who have an interest is a very significant part of doing this.

A. Warnke: I would like to ask one more question, and then, along this theme, I believe one of my colleagues would also like to interject with a question. This involves the British Columbia Real Estate Association and their view of this whole area of aboriginal land claims, and obviously their effect on the industry. I'm wondering if the minister could -- and I'll just assume that the minister has received this document....

Nonetheless, for our purposes here, I'll just make some mention of the points that the British Columbia Real Estate Association has put forward in this context of aboriginal land claims and so on.

In their release they request that government guarantee to defend private title during treaty negotiations, and clarify whether aboriginal title will be the equivalent of fee simple ownership, whether the government will expand its commitment to protect fee simple to include other forms of tenure, such as leased land and other occupier interests, and whether the government will guarantee equal treatment for all persons in matters relating to the use of Crown land.

That last one I want to take up as a separate issue, and there are a couple of other points as well -- in fact, one that my colleague will address fairly soon. Could the minister -- for the purpose of the record -- go back to the British Columbia Real Estate Association and address those points?

Hon. J. Cashore: I have not seen that document. We'll look for it in our office, but we might be asking the Real Estate Association to send us a copy of it. If the definition of the term "private title" is the same as "fee simple," then the answer is yes, it will be defended to the extent that we won't allow it to come to the table, we won't discuss it.

I do have to point out that one of the results of a treaty settlement could be that a first nation would end up purchasing fee simple land that was in its interest. I suppose there are contexts in which a mutual interest like that could be discussed. I don't think we can be silly about this. There may be somebody -- it could even be a private person -- who would want to say: "Have you considered looking at this land in the context of other considerations?"

But the concept of private title not being on the table means that.... If your definition of that means fee simple, the answer is no, it won't be on the table. Where the question goes on to "Will it expand to protect other kinds of title or lease and that sort of thing?" the answer is yes, the government will vigorously defend those interests, but recognizes, in all honesty, that in some cases there may be a need to look at that. And if there is, and if that was to result in that being impacted by a settlement, then there would be fair compensation.

We will seek, to the greatest extent possible, to avoid that being the case. We've guaranteed consultation with the parties involved, and we would seek as much as possible to come up with solutions that don't impact on any existing interest.

I think the concept of equal treatment applies as well. I would go back to comments the hon. member made a bit earlier about seeing the minister as an advocate. The fact is I'm an advocate for a new and honourable relationship, and that's an advocacy that works every bit as much for the non-aboriginal as for the aboriginal people. It's my responsibility to uphold the interests of all British Columbians in the context of treaty negotiations and this new and honourable relationship that we are seeking to achieve.

Not only is it my responsibility, it's the responsibility of every other member of cabinet to uphold the steps towards this new and honourable relationship. In order for it to be honourable, it must mean that they represent the interests of all British Columbians in their deliberations as well. It's also in the interests of first nations, because the more quality that goes into the negotiations from the three different perspectives, the better the treaty settlements will be.

When that happens, it will ensure that we have the kind of certainty which, for instance, in the case of the Musqueam -- to go back to that theme we were talking about a few moments ago -- will mean that the provincial law of general application would apply, that we would have come to an end of this silliness around the Indian Act and lands held in trust by the federal government, and that those kinds of issues would be over because we would have negotiated a resolution of them.

[ Page 13943 ]

[4:30]

D. Symons: Just following along with that, I'm wondering if the government, in trying to settle claims where there might be some dispute over land that is owned in fee simple by a non-aboriginal person, would use its expropriation powers in order to bring about a resolution.

Hon. J. Cashore: I think that the premise of the question is based on the assumption that we are allowing negotiations over fee simple land, which we aren't. Since we've said very clearly that we won't negotiate fee simple land, we would not anticipate the expropriation of fee simple land.

D. Symons: I thank the minister for that answer. I think that will be reassuring to a good number of people in the province.

I have a concern about the situation just south of Parksville involving the Craig Bay Estates development there. The concern I have here is.... I assume that the purchasers of this property to develop it bought it in good faith, and therefore now own title to it. It appears that because of some dispute -- indeed, there seems to be an aboriginal burial ground there -- there are now some problems. That leads to the question I asked a moment ago. This is a problem that's going to, I think, take a great deal of wisdom to solve.

We have a problem here where a developer has bought some land, intended to develop it -- and, indeed, began to develop it -- and then discovered that they had a burial site involved. The aboriginal people are rather upset about this burial site being disturbed. Can the minister give us some indication of how he's going about resolving a question of this sort?

Hon. J. Cashore: Craig Bay is a very, very interesting situation. I've been there on two occasions in the last five months. The first time I was there I saw a situation developing where the developer had found out that some bones were being excavated. A process was followed whereby officials were notified. At that time an archaeologist was brought in. The archaeologist, as I recall -- and I could be corrected on this -- stated that on the basis of his or her survey, there could be, I think, up to 20 human remains. That turned out not to be the case.

What in fact was the case was that the site was on a midden that, through radiocarbon dating, is now seen to go back, I think, 4,400 years. When I was on that site I saw some artefacts that.... I think I was probably the tenth person to hold a spear since the time it was placed there perhaps 2,000 or 3,000 years ago. It was quite an eerie feeling.

What I'm getting at, hon. member, is that our province in its wisdom has a great deal of respect for heritage sites, the presence of human remains within those sites, and the presence of artefacts that tell us something about the history of our province during the time of the presence of human beings. We also know that up and down the east coast of Vancouver Island and in other areas -- probably on the Sunshine Coast -- there's a high incidence of these kinds of middens that go back to quite some point in time. As I said, our province in its wisdom has enacted legislation -- the Heritage Conservation Act -- to enable this sort of thing to be dealt with.

It's a bit of apples and oranges when we are criticized.... I'm not saying the hon. member has made this criticism, but we are sometimes criticized on the basis of having said fee simple land is not on the table. Then, as one columnist said: "How come you're looking at private property in a situation like this?" Well, the fact is that there is a law called the Heritage Conservation Act. It's a law of general application; it has the same application to aboriginal people as to non-aboriginal people.

Yes, there are provisions in that act that could cause an order to stop work on a site while an attempt is made to resolve the fact that something needs to be done, whether it's removal of bones or protection of artefacts -- whatever it needs to be. Also in the powers of that act there is the ability to issue an order for work to be allowed to proceed. That is one legal framework. The other legal framework, as the member has pointed out, is that a private developer has bought land in good faith, gone through the permitting process and started to embark on a process. That is another legal framework.

We're dealing with a situation where two legal frameworks obtain. And the parties on both sides rightly feel aggrieved. This is a situation where two parties have come to a point of disagreement and where both have legal rights on their side. Therefore I and our government have taken the position that, hopefully, we can play a role in bringing the parties together in seeking to get the issue resolved. We believe there are real possibilities there.

There have been discussions with the developer, from time to time, that have talked about possibly setting aside a certain area where these bones can be moved to. I met a week ago Monday with some of the elders of the Nanoose band. They're very distressed. They were saying, for reasons of their own spiritual heritage, that they have some real concerns and sensitivities around the removal of these bones. We believe, however, given other circumstances where this has occurred, that there have been ways of coming to agreements where there would be ceremonial ways of respecting those situations and where those bones were removed to another area.

What we are in the midst of here is a very complex issue where we are seeking to work with the parties to sort it out. The parties on both sides have made some genuine attempts, but I think we have to keep working with this to come up with a creative solution.

D. Symons: I thank the minister for the answer. The concern I have here is that, in a sense, the minister kept talking about the two parties. In one sense, I see that it's not really an issue between the two parties. It's an issue that, through putting in a Heritage Conservation Act or working on land claims negotiations, the government has inserted itself between those two parties. The government then bears some responsibility for any of the economic expenses that might have occurred to either of the parties.

In this case, maybe the larger one is to Craig Bay Estates, who have, as I said earlier, in good faith gone ahead, purchased some property and expected to do a certain development, which now they find, because of a government act, they are not able to follow through with. So when you're saying you're trying to bring the two parties together, I'm wondering what part the government has in making sure that they will have just compensation for the delays or the loss of potential they had in the investment they had made in that property.

Hon. J. Cashore: I understand that the Tourism estimates have already been concluded. I hope the hon. member made use of that opportunity to discuss that with the minister responsible for the Heritage Conservation Act.

[ Page 13944 ]

It's interesting that he would use that term, that we have "inserted" ourselves into the situation. I don't think it's a matter of inserting ourselves; I think it's a matter of seeking to follow our responsibility.

It may be that in the member's next comment he may wish to make some suggestions as to how he would see this issue managed. He mentioned the issue of compensation. He might wish to flesh that out a bit, too, and talk a bit about how his party would see that compensation being brought forward from the taxpayers. He may just fill that out a little bit so we could understand where he's coming from.

D. Symons: I appreciate the minister is attempting to dodge the responsibility they have when they're sitting on that side of the House. You are the minister in charge, not I; the decisions that are to be made have to come from the minister and the government in charge, not the opposition. Until we're government I will defer giving you the solution we might have to that problem.

I wonder if we could move to another problem that has come up that also relates to Aboriginal Affairs. I wasn't aware of this until I happened to be sorting through some materials -- winnowing, actually -- and I discovered that under the consumer taxation branch, which I know is not this minister's responsibility, there is apparently a tax exemption on fuel that is delivered to aboriginal bands on band land. I am curious if to the minister's knowledge there is any restriction that that fuel must be used on reserve land, or can they sell to non-aboriginals when they come onto band land.

Can they sell tax-free fuel? Can I go and fill up at a band office and get away without paying provincial sales tax on my motor fuel?

Hon. J. Cashore: I wish I could find some way for this member to be in the House of Commons and be asking questions of the federal Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. This is a

section 87 exemption under the federal Indian Act.

A few moments ago I suggested that the hon. member take the opportunity to say what he would do. I am fully aware that the role here is to ask questions of the minister, but I would mention that one of the things I did in estimates when I was in opposition was to take the opportunity to let the public know how I would handle an issue, to try to enhance my opportunities to become government, and that's the spirit in which I offered the opportunity to the member.

Interjection.

Hon. J. Cashore: I did answer it, hon. member, but it's interesting that the hon. member would not avail himself of an opportunity to inform the public what he would do. Here we have a platform, it's on cable TV, some of his constituents are probably listening, and the member has an opportunity to inform them how he would suggest helping out with this situation. Of course, we welcome ideas from all parts of the House, so if he still wants to take that opportunity and show leadership to his constituents, I would encourage him to do that.

With regard to the question he was asking about the gasoline tax exemption, I want the hon. member to know that through negotiations in the Treaty Commission process I want to see an end to those exemptions. I want to negotiate a new and honourable relationship in which people who achieve self-esteem, self-respect and self-determination enter into the economy to the extent that it's a matter of pride to be in a position to pay for the services they receive, the same as anybody else. In order to achieve that, there needs to be discussion and there needs to be transition, and all of that.

One of the benefits to British Columbians of the certainty that would come out of the treaty-making process would be the opportunity to address some of those situations, such as finding a better way than a

section 87 exemption. There is a better way, and I think that better way is in the interest of all concerned.

[M. Lord in the chair.]

D. Symons: I thank the minister for the answer on the fuel issue, because I wholeheartedly agree that it's best that we're all on an equal footing. We did have a bit of a problem a few years ago when the federal government lowered the tax on cigarettes. There seemed to be a great increase in the sale of cigarettes through bands, and I don't think that was in the best interest of either the aboriginal people or British Columbians. So I'm glad to hear that we're at one on that.

I would go back to the minister's admonition of me for not giving my views on the previous one. The reason I threw that out was that I did not get an answer from the minister. When I opened my statement he seemed to be dodging the question by not giving any answer at all on the solution that's needed up in the Parksville area. You seem to be expecting me to give you a solution to your problem, and you're not willing to give any possible solution yourself.

[4:45]

Hon. J. Cashore: I'd like to invite the member to ask his question again, because I sincerely believe that I had answered the question. I would like to ask him to ask the question again, in a very focused way, and I'll do my best to answer.

D. Symons: Just in finishing this.... I'll read Hansard tomorrow. I'll be back tomorrow if, indeed, I did not hear an answer in your reply.

A. Warnke: I appreciate the questions and comments of my colleague. I want to turn to another aspect of what the government has proposed in terms of its principles. That is the question of affordability.

It's a very touchy area, and everyone is well aware of that. To begin with, there's been a lot of speculation as to what it would cost us. There has been a lot of speculation, not only on cost in terms of dollars, but land. I suppose it is very fair to say that some aboriginal bands -- some first nations bands -- have made it very clear that they're not interested in money; they are interested in land. Other bands have said that some sort of mix, or some sort of cash settlement, is entirely appropriate and acceptable, and so on, after negotiations are complete.

There has been a lot of speculation on costs, and I remember one debate we had in the past on Aboriginal Affairs -- we were tossing numbers around. At this stage I appreciate the difficulty in terms of coming up with some sort of figure. I know that in my speculation -- which is not really grounded

[ Page 13945 ]

on terms of any reality in British Columbia, but modelled on some of the other settlements that have occurred in Canada.... I'm thinking of one settlement in the Northwest Territories, I believe, that was $60,000 per person. You begin to speculate that if the population of British Columbia is 100,000, maybe we're talking about $6 billion, and so on.

I think the minister would say that this is all really speculation. Nonetheless, even with that kind of model -- and with the model of the settlement that has taken place in the Yukon -- we know this much: we are really dealing with some fairly large numbers. I think there is an impression, too, that this is going to cost a whole heck of a lot of money all at once, when, in fact, through the negotiations, it would be fair to suggest that that is not necessarily the case. What could possibly take place is that once the negotiations have been finalized, there may be cash settlements over a period of time. Perhaps it wo