1982 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd 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 )

TUESDAY, JULY 13, 1982

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

8737 ]

CONTENTS

Ministerial statement re death of cardiac patient.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 8737

Mr. Cocke –– 8738

Ministerial statement re pay telephone jurisdiction.

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 8738

Mr. Mitchell –– 8738

Routine Proceedings

Presenting Reports

Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills, fourth report.

Mr. Strachan –– 8739

Oral Questions

Forest industry plant closures. Mr. Hanson –– 8739

Tenure of UBC professor. Mr. Nicolson –– 8739

Complaints filed with employment standards branch. Ms. Sanford –– 8739

B.C. Railway borrowing. Mr. Leggatt –– 8740

Municipal taxation. Mr. Stupich –– 8741

Pacific North Coast Native Cooperative. Mr. Lea –– 8741

Mrs. Wallace

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Tourism estimates. (Hon. Mrs. Jordan)

On vote 74: operations services –– 8742

Mr. Hall

Ms. Brown

On the amendment to vote 74 –– 8743

Division

On vote 75: marketing services –– 8743

Mr. Hall

On the amendment to vote 75 –– 8745

Division

Indian Cut-off Lands Disputes Act (Bill 58). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Williams)

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 8745

Mr. Levi –– 8747

Mr. Passarell –– 8749

Mr. Leggatt –– 8749

Mr. Nicolson –– 8750

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 8751

Utilities Commission Amendment Act –– 1982 (Bill 66). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. McClelland)

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 8753

Mr. D'Arcy –– 8754

Mr. Lockstead –– 8754

Mr. Hanson –– 8755

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 8755

Vancouver Centennial Celebration Act (Bill 64). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Wolfe)

Third reading –– 8756

Seaboard Assurance Company Act. 1953, Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill PR401).

Second reading. (Mr. Ree)

Mr. Ree –– 8756

Seaboard Assurance Company Act, 1953, Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill PR401).

Second reading. (Mr. Ree)

Third reading –– 8757

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Phillips)

On vote 5 1: minister's office –– 8757

Hon. Mr. Phillips

TUESDAY, JULY 13, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, in your

gallery this afternoon are two fine young ladies from the fair

community of Hope: my niece Andrea Conti and her friend Dawn Glennie. I

ask the House to make them welcome.

MS. SANFORD: I

would I like to introduce Erik Eriksson from Courtenay, who is visiting

here today with his relatives from Iceland. I would like the House to

welcome Atli Arasson and Gudney Eiriksdottir.

MR. STRACHAN:

I have three guests this afternoon from the Amalgamated Construction

Association. They are Mr. Don Vandervoort and Mr. Alexander. I'd also

like the House to welcome Mr. Robert Sebastian, an outstanding .artist

from Prince George.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I

would like the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) to know that his

relatives are in good company in your gallery today. Seated beside them

are two brothers from Cowichan-Malahat: John and Malcolm Crockett.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

I have the honour to introduce today good friends, Mr. Don and Mrs.

Lorraine Nelson of Maple Ridge, who have as their guests Mr. and Mrs.

Robie Macdonald of Halifax. I wish the House to make them welcome.

DEATH OF CARDIAC PATIENT

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) stated yesterday in question

period: "Dr. Peter Richardson said that a government funding cutback in

health care resulting in long waiting lists for surgery accounted for

the death of his patient." I asked officials in the Ministry of Health,

including a physician, to investigate the circumstances of this case,

and I have today received information from the senior physician within

the ministry.

I am advised that the patient was a

67-year-old retired man. Eight years ago, he began to have chest pain

on exertion due to the failure of his partially blocked coronary

arteries to deliver sufficient blood to the heart muscle. I'm further

advised that six years ago he underwent coronary angiography and was

found to have rather severe coronary artery disease. In particular, one

important artery was virtually totally blocked. He underwent bypass

surgery at that time and made a reasonably good recovery; however, he

continued to have chest pain. Further x-rays were taken of his coronary

arteries, which revealed that the bypass was working reasonably well.

Therefore he was treated with various heart medications with good

results. He was able to do a reasonable amount of activity without

symptoms, and his blood pressure, which had been high, was controlled.

I'm further advised that a few months ago he again became troubled by chest

pain on exertion. In April of this year, he was once more subjected to coronary

artery angiography and his coronary artery disease was found to have advanced;

at least three vessels were involved and needed bypassing. However, the bypass

done six years ago was still open and functioning well, so it was thought that

while he indeed had unpleasant symptoms, he was unlikely to have a serious heart

attack in the near future. He was therefore placed on the elective list rather

than the urgent or emergency list. I am advised that an additional factor in

his placement was that he continued to smoke. It was felt that if he could stop

in the interim, his surgical risk would be less.

His

condition was apparently reasonably stable until Monday, July 5, when

he was admitted to Surrey Memorial Hospital with severe chest pain. I'm

advised that his physician's intention was to treat the patient

medically in an aggressive fashion in order to "cool down" his severe

angina before referring him on for a more urgent surgical procedure. As

the week progressed, however, it became apparent that the patient had

suffered a slowly evolving condition described as death of heart muscle

tissue due to poor blood supply, in turn due to obstructed coronary

arteries.

On Friday, four days later, I'm advised that a

cardiac surgeon was contacted by the patient's physician, Dr.

Richardson, and told of the change in the patient's condition.

According to the surgeon the suggestion was that the patient might have

to have surgery within a week or two, but I'm told he was not asked to

accept the patient in transfer or to do surgery on an emergent basis.

There

was a cardiac surgeon, a perfusionist and a complete operating team on

standby over the weekend of July 9 at Vancouver General Hospital, and

they could have attended to the patient had there been a request. I am

advised by our medical consultant that Dr. Richardson advised him that

by the weekend there was no point in attempting surgery, as the damage

had already been done.

Given the circumstances outlined

above, there is no way that the death of this patient can be attributed

to "hospital spending cutbacks." All three hospitals that do cardiac

surgery have continued to give it high priority. In only one hospital,

the Vancouver General Hospital, has the number of cases done each week

fallen off somewhat, and this is due primarily to a shortage of skilled

personnel. Emergency cardiac surgery continues to be available in all

three hospitals on a 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week basis. During the

recent weekend, four emergency heart procedures were done at St. Paul's

Hospital on patients from various points in the province. It should be

emphasized that the hospital spending restraint program has not reduced

the amount of cardiac surgery being done in the province, nor has it

increased the waiting lists or waiting times for cardiac surgery.

This

afternoon a Vancouver cardiologist. who has not hesitated in the past

to be critical of the Ministry of Health, spoke to me on the phone and

expressed his concern over statements currently being made with respect

to the circumstances of cardiac surgery. He feels that the statements

are misleading and unfounded. While he expressed his desire to see the

waiting lists for elective cardiac surgery shortened, he feels strongly

that the emergency open-heart surgery facilities are readily available

and are doing a good job. It was he who mentioned to me the four

emergency cases handled successfully by St. Paul's on a recent weekend.

addition, the president of Vancouver General Hospital, Mr. Jim Flett,

today advised me that the current financial constraints have not

limited Vancouver General Hospital resources for cardiac surgery in any

way. In fact, the hospital has gone out of its way to avoid such a

situation. Any problem that exists with respect to achieving their 15

cases per week is

[ Page 8738 ]

attributed to the lack of technical resources, such as perfusionists.

Mr.

Speaker, on the basis of the information provided to me today, there is

no evidence that "hospital spending cutbacks" contributed in any way to

this death. There has been no reduction in the availability of

open-heart surgery in the province since the restraint program was

instituted. In particular, it should be noted that emergency cardiac

surgery continues to be readily available at all three cardiac surgery

centres, including weekends.

MR. COCKE: I have one or

two remarks to make with respect to this particular case. I can

understand why the minister wanted to get as much detail as possible

because of the charges that were made.

I'm not sure of the

relevancy of the person's age — that's a value judgment one makes about

age. Also, it occurs to me that I read about this gentleman some time

before he actually had the cardiac accident which took his life. He

happened to have been previously written up in a health

article in the Vancouver Sun . It is a fact that that particular case was noted before the person died.

think the general thrust of my concern here is that the director of

cardiac surgery at the Royal Jubilee Hospital said: "The expansion of

cardiac facilities, approved twice by the Health ministry, had to be

cancelled when the restraint program was announced." That's contrary to

what the minister has just told us — that's number one. Number two is

that the minister explains this by saying that there is some lack of

technical people. But the chief of cardiac surgery at the new

cardiology unit at VGH reported a decrease of three operations per week

— that is 150 operations a year.

I suspect there are some problems out there that the minister is not dealing with in terms of....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: You suspect, but do you know?

MR. COCKE:

I know it; I'm trying to be euphemistic. The former Minister of Health

knows it better than anybody in this room other than myself.

MR. SPEAKER:

As a general guideline for both ministerial statements and replies,

statements of fact, policy and administration are in order, but

argumentation must be avoided.

PAY TELEVISION JURISDICTION

HON. MR. McGEER: I have a ministerial statement for the assembly.

July 9, 1982, the government of British Columbia commenced legal action

in the Supreme Court of British Columbia against the government of

Canada and the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications

Commission as a result of recent initiatives of the CRTC claiming

jurisdiction over pay television and non-broadcast undertakings by

cable companies.

First of all, I want to impress on

everybody concerned that the government of British Columbia takes this

course of action with great reluctance. For years the province has

attempted to reach a political accord with the federal government to

resolve jurisdiction over non-broadcast undertakings offered by cable

TV companies. The federal government has continued to ignore provincial

rights in this area. As recently as May of this year, during our

legislative session, at a meeting of federal-provincial Ministers of

Communications in Calgary, I pleaded with the Hon. Francis Fox, the

federal Minister of Communications, to agree to serious negotiation to

resolve this question at the political level. I indicated that the

federal government's obstinacy would ultimately force a resolution in

the courts. Unfortunately the federal minister continued to insist that

pay TV was exclusively a federal matter, and that no recognition of

provincial jurisdiction would be forthcoming.

British

Columbia is seeking from the courts declarations that the federal

parliament has no constitutional authority to authorize the CRTC to

license and regulate the business of producing, acquiring, packaging or

distributing programs intended for use on pay television, nor the

constitutional authority to authorize the CRTC to license and regulate

non-broadcasting undertakings of cable television. Among the services

that non-broadcasting undertakings can provide are non-programming

surveillance for burglary, health, fire, information services, video

games and shared computer services. This is not an action against those

pay TV undertakings themselves, nor does it suggest that the federal

government is excluded from involvement with the industry. It only

seeks confirmation that their area of jurisdiction is confined to

broadcast undertakings.

The reason for the provincial

government's intense interest in this area goes far beyond the question

of jurisdiction over pay television. That is only the most visible of a

host of new services that will revolutionize communications.

Communications are far too important to the social and economic

well-being of British Columbians to turn, by default, such matters over

to a regulator 3,000 miles away. It is our philosophy not to regulate

but to deregulate. It's paradoxical that in order to do so we must

first establish our right to regulate.

I want to emphasize

to pay TV and cable companies that I'm particularly sensitive to the

uncertainty thrust upon them by this continuing jurisdictional discord.

As I indicated in my submission to the CRTC when it commenced hearings

on pay television last year, the government of British Columbia was

doing its utmost to find a political solution, but should efforts fail

and resort to the courts become necessary, I had every confidence that

provincial jurisdiction would be confirmed.

I repeat: this

legal action which we have been forced into is not taken against the

industry but only against federal regulation. I therefore urge pay TV

and cable companies to proceed with their plans on a business as usual

approach until this matter is ultimately resolved. The British Columbia

Utilities Commission will continue to accept applications, and I

particularly wish to assure all companies licensed by the CRTC that

they can obtain certification from the provincial regulator. This

accommodation mitigates the effects of federal-provincial

jurisdictional differences and will allow development to proceed.

MR. MITCHELL:

I would like to respond to the minister and state that the NDP

regretfully supports his need to go to court. In a world faced with all

the problems of war and peace, if we in Canada can't negotiate on

jurisdiction over pay TV, somehow we lose the ability to govern

ourselves. I'm sorry that we have to take court action, but if that is

the only step left, the NDP supports the government in taking it,

because we believe that communications jurisdiction should be with the

provincial government.

[ Page 8739 ]

favour pay TV — the concept, the choice and the multiplicity of

channels. We are hoping that the minister will give some leadership

within that business, and that there will be jobs and a positive

program created in the securities that I am very familiar with, and

also with the actors.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, we are sorry

that the government cannot negotiate, but we must bring it to a head.

If the courts are the last resort, then we must support it.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to discharge motion 19 under my name on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Presenting Reports

Mr.

Strachan, Chairman of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders

and Private Bills, presented the committee's fourth report, which was

read as follows and received:

"Mr. Speaker, your Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills begs leave to report as follows:

"The

preamble of Bill PR401, intituled Seaboard Assurance

Company Act, 1953, Amendment Act, 1982, has been proved and the bill ordered

to be reported as amended.

"All of which is respectfully submitted. W.B. Strachan,

Chairman, Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills."

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, by leave I move that the rules be suspended and the report adopted.

Motion approved.

Oral Questions

FOREST INDUSTRY PLANT CLOSURES

MR. HANSON:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Forests. B.C. Forest

Products of Victoria has now announced that they will not reopen their

plant, and the temporary shutdown has become indefinite. Can the

minister advise the House whether he has decided that all forest

companies shall give reasonable notice of indefinite shutdowns of, for

example, three months to their employees and to the minister?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I wonder if I could ask the member to repeat the question.

MR. HANSON:

My question relates to a situation where a company which embarked upon

a temporary shutdown will now, without notice to its workers or the

government, remain shut down indefinitely. Is it not reasonable, and

have you decided, that from now on forest companies shall give three

months' notice of indefinite shutdowns?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: No.

TENURE OF UBC PROFESSOR

MR. NICOLSON:

I have a question to the Minister of Universities, Science and

Communications. Professor Julius Kane of the University of British

Columbia has been found guilty in county court and lost subsequent

appeals at the higher court on two counts of theft of funds from a

national research grant. Can the minister advise the House why he

retains his position as professor at the University of British Columbia?

HON. MR. McGEER:

Not because of any policy of this government or any support from the

minister. Unfortunately, the administration and board of governors of

the University of British Columbia have entered into an agreement with

their faculty association by which such matters will be referred to an

arbitration panel for decision. I don't believe the board of governors

should have given that authority away, and I think he result of that

arbitration confirms that that was an unwise thing to do.

Unfortunately, that's the circumstance, but I want to make it very

clear that I in no way support the University of British Columbia for

the decision that was made in the Julius Kane case. I do not think he

should be a member of that faculty.

MR. NICOLSON: Is

it the minister's opinion then that the university has the right to

give away that particular authority, which can only be granted by the

Legislative Assembly?

HON. MR. McGEER: I would be

happy to investigate that question. I have been told that it has, but I

feel strongly enough about this matter that I will ask the question

again and report back to the Legislative Assembly.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is taken as notice.

COMPLAINTS FILED WITH

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS BRANCH

MS. SANFORD: I have a

question to the Minister of Labour. Now that the minister has received

information concerning a complaint filed with the employment standards

branch against Western Lettuce Now, Inc., which is partly owned by the

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), can the minister

advise why these employees were paid under the guise of farmworkers and

denied overtime?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, this

particular question was asked approximately a week or ten days ago. In

response. the employment standards branch annually receives literally

thousands of complaints. The allegations that complaints were filed

against Western Lettuce Now Inc. are correct, but those particular

allegations are being investigated in the way that all complaints are

handled, and the matter is under review. That's the mandate which the

director of employment standards has under the legislation.

While

I'm on my feet, reference was made in the second part of the member's

question of about ten days ago to applications made by Western Lettuce

Now, Inc. to the youth employment program. The information I have is

that no such application was made and no positions under the program

have been approved for this employer.

[ Page 8740 ]

MS. SANFORD:

Mr. Speaker, the minister has taken a personal interest in this as a

result of the information I provided to him. Has he determined the

amount of overtime owed to the workers, and what steps has the minister

himself taken to ensure that these overtime payments will be made?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

With respect to the comment of personal interest, this particular case

is not any different from any other case submitted to the labour

standards branch. It seems to be of particular interest because a

colleague happens to be a part-owner of Western Lettuce Now, Inc. It's

not my function to examine each of those allegations in detail; that's

why we have a director of labour standards and industrial relations

officers in that particular branch; they make the recommendations.

Mr. Speaker, this particular allegation will be investigated and examined in the same routine manner as all other complaints.

MS. SANFORD:

In this case it happens to be a colleague and a minister of this

cabinet who is involved in these allegations. The minister himself

asked for information concerning this case specifically. In view of the

fact that the cheques issued to the employees of Western Lettuce were

signed by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, has the minister informed

his colleague that there are labour standards in this province?

B.C. RAILWAY BORROWING

MR. LEGGATT:

My question is directed to the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development. B.C. Rail signed short-term notes for the construction of

the Anzac line. These notes were due July 2. They totalled some $87

million.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LEGGATT:

Can the minister advise us whether those notes have been redeemed by

B.C. Rail? Have those notes been rolled over into further short-term

debt or are they being capitalized into long-term debt for the company?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

The member for Coquitlam Moody has been in this House for a couple of

years. I realize that he's being educated in the ways of the province

of British Columbia after Ottawa....

MR. SPEAKER: Let's have the answer to the question.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

I find it surprising that the member would direct that question to me,

when he knows full well that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

is the fiscal agent for all Crown corporations in this government. I'll

be quite happy to take the question as notice and get the responsible

minister to bring back an answer in due course to the members of the

Legislative Assembly.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is redirected.

MR. LEGGATT: I want to assure the minister that I will ask the Minister of Finance when and if he comes to the House; he's not here today.

MR. BRUMMET: He's with Gary Lauk.

MR. LEGGATT: I didn't hear that witticism. Could I hear it again?

question is to the same minister. The minister has stated on many

occasions that the construction of the Anzac line is going to be on a

pay-as-you-go basis. Could he advise why there is a debt accumulating

to B.C. Rail over this construction project? Is the minister ready to

admit to the House that he has now abandoned any pretence of pay as you

go and is saddling B.C. Rail with further long-term debt as a result of

the project?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You know, that member

never ceases to amaze me in some of the questions that he asks here,

because he has incorrectly and erroneously accused the government of

taking money out of the mouths of babes and mothers and putting it into

the northeast coal project, stripping the medical services of the

province and having people starve to death on the streets because they

couldn't get social services. Now he stands up and accuses this

government of not putting money into northeast coal. I cannot for the

life of me understand where that member for Coquitlam-Moody comes from.

MR. LEGGATT:

The minister's aware, of course, that he can't get away with irrelevant

answers to relevant questions, which he continues to do. By special

warrant on March 25, just before this Legislature sat, $45 million in

government funds went to B.C. Rail. Can the minister confirm that this

was used to buy down interest charges and cover up the true cost of

borrowing for the project?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: There

again that question is amazing because the Leader of the Opposition

went out and told the public of British Columbia that that $45 million

was to cover huge overruns on the Anzac spurline. He should listen to

his leader.

(Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. The question that we are answering is a question asked

here today, not a question asked several weeks or months ago.

(Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. LEGGATT:

Has the minister read the report of this Legislature's Crown

corporations committee which contains all the information that was

asked him today, and if he hasn't read it would he read it so he'd give

some relevant answers to this Legislature?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'd like to ask the member for Coquitlam-Moody if that's the same report that he leaked to the Vancouver Sun ,

which on the next day reported huge overruns and the tunnels caving in

and everything else. I think you should read the report.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

[ Page 8741 ]

MUNICIPAL TAXATION

MR. STUPICH: In the absence of the Minister of Finance, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

The

city of Vancouver and other municipalities have repeatedly asked the

minister for legislation which would allow municipalities to set a

differential mill rate that would enable them to provide some relief

from provincial assessment decisions for small business. Has the

minister now decided to grant this request to assist municipalities in

dealing with the latest Social Credit tax crisis?

PACIFIC NORTH COAST NATIVE COOPERATIVE

MR. LEA:

I would like to ask the Attorney-General whether, to his knowledge,

there are proceedings taking place at this moment that would put the

Pacific North Coast Native Cooperative into receivership.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Not to my knowledge.

MRS. WALLACE:

Some time ago — about last May in fact — the Minister of Agriculture

and Food addressed a letter to the Federation of Agriculture relative

to farm income assurance, which read in part: "As you will appreciate,

the history of some of the plans illustrates that the relationship

between the calculated basic cost and the market return is far from

satisfactory." He suggested that some of the plans, not being viable,

should not be in existence.

Inasmuch as beef is one of the

most costly programs, has the minister decided that that farm income

assurance plan is not viable?

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Speaker, I want to rise on a question of privilege, This is the

first opportunity I've had to raise this matter, because confirmation

of its existence was not given to me until about 1 o'clock today. The

question of privilege, briefly, is that members of the House are being

impeded and obstructed in the pursuit of their duties and obligations.

I'll set out some circumstances leading up to that, if I could, Mr.

Speaker.

On June 7, 1982, Miss Gloria Williams, who is a

researcher working with the NDP caucus, examined certain vouchers and

attached invoices and bills under the surveillance of an officer from

the Ministry of Finance, pursuant to the rules and procedures that were

in effect at that time. Miss Williams transcribed from vouchers,

invoices and billings certain information.

One particular

voucher examined on that day was identified with audit control number

805493, with a departmental control number A493889. Attached to that

voucher were two invoices from the Harbour Towers. One was dated March

19, 1981, and identified by the number 1355386. The other invoice,

undated, was a banquet services invoice, numbered 454. The banquet

services invoice number 454 was for dinners, drinks and hors-d'oeuvres

totalling $224.60. Invoice number B55386 listed items such as valet,

telegram, garage and miscellaneous, for a total of $224.60. The items

shown on each invoice — that is, on the banquet services invoice and

the invoice directly submitted by the Harbour Towers Hotel — coincided

one with the other in individual dollar charges. As an example. the

invoice submitted had a garage bill of $115.60: the banquet services

invoice had hors-d'oeuvres and dinners totalling $115.60.

Either

a banquet for eight persons took place, but the hotel billed for

something else, or the other items — namely, the garage and a telegram

for $49 — were charged up and the invoice relating to the banquet

services was an attempt to substitute for that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. The Minister of Universities rises on a point of order.

HON. MR. McGEER:

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the committee on public accounts

exists to go into this kind of detail, and thus save the House the time

and the tedium of individual vouchers. May I respectfully suggest that

it be referred to that committee.

MR. SPEAKER: Order,

please. Hon. member, matters which take place in committee must be

cared for in committee. The member has risen to his feet to state a

matter of privilege. The member knows that to state a matter of

privilege, it should be done as briefly as possible. His early premise

was that a member had been impeded in carrying out his

responsibilities. It is apparent to the Chair that all of the detail

that is present in his statement perhaps goes beyond the realm of a

brief statement: the member must soon show how the detail affects a

member's right to carry out his responsibility

MR. HOWARD:

I had just, in fact, reached that point, Mr. Speaker, but I felt it was

necessary to identify what it was that Miss Williams — whose word I

accept — says was on those particular invoices. I make the statement in

the House on my own responsibility, in any event.

Last

Thursday the hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King), the hon.

member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) and I were examining certain vouchers

and documents in a room in the Douglas Building set aside for that

purpose under the surveillance of an officer from the Ministry of

Finance. In the course of looking at those particular documents, I came

across a voucher having thereon audit control number 805493. showing

the payee to be the Harbour Towers Hotel at a certain address. The

amount to be paid was $224.60.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. please. I must now ask the member to come quickly to the matter of privilege.

MR. HOWARD:

There were no attachments to that voucher: no invoices. I inquired of

the officer of the Ministry of Finance who was there what may have

happened to them and where they might be. He held the voucher up to the

light, looked at it, and said: "Well, there must have been something

there, because there are staple marks, staple holes, in the voucher

itself" — something that obviously had been attached. We looked through

all the vouchers in the pile in which that particular voucher was

resting; there were no loose papers of any nature.

It wasn't

until later, upon checking with Miss Williams, that I discovered that

the missing documents were in fact the ones which I had referred to

earlier, namely invoice B55386 and banquet services invoice number 454.

Upon checking with the Ministry of Finance officer and upon checking

with him finally today, I was advised that he is not able to locate

[ Page 8742 ]

those

missing invoices and that the search for them has been concluded. The

question of privilege I put, Mr. Speaker, if you find that I do have

one, is that that is impeding members in the progress of their duties

and their responsibilities.

I would like to table the

relevant references which I have. I cannot table copies of the

originals because that was denied to us.

MR. SPEAKER: I understand.

MR. HOWARD:

I also, Mr. Speaker, give notice to you of a motion that I intend to

move, if you find that there is, in fact, a prima facie case of

privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, we will review

the statement made, and we will reserve decision and bring a decision

to the House as quickly as possible.

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TOURISM

(continued)

On vote 74: operations services, $5,269, 233.

MR. HALL:

This morning we discussed the ministry in very general terms, and

received answers to just about every one of our questions. We have some

more questions as we go through the remaining two very large votes.

first question relates to the deputy minister's office, simply because

we now keep a set of books on the minister's office which is more

difficult, as the figures aren't broken down in quite the same way. I

notice that last year a staff of three people in the deputy minister's

office cost the taxpayer $107,000; a staff of two people this year cost

$158,000. There can often be a very simple explanation for that kind of

thing and I'm sure the minister has it, but I would like to know why

two people cost a lot more than three used to cost.

second question deals with the specifics related to my general question

this morning about research, policy planning and policy development. In

this vote, which is $615,000 — slightly down from last year — there is

an item in our second book of estimates. We have to have more pieces of

paper to handle the estimates now than ever before in the history of

British Columbia politics. Looking at this second large and unwieldy

book, we find $149,000 for professional services. We're now in the

seventh month, more than a quarter of the way through the year. Can the

minister tell us what's been ordered to date in the way of professional

services?

A second question related to policy development

and planning is that under data processing appears the princely sum of

$295,000. I don't know what B.C. Systems is charging on an hourly basis

or on a project basis, but it's obviously far too much. While I have

every reason to suppose there is first-class work going on here — and

you're probably getting some work done by outside consultants — I can't

understand why it takes $300,000 to transmogrify that raw material into

some readable information. Frankly, $295,000 is too much. I'd like to

know what the minister is doing about nearly $300,000 for data

processing. I think this is one of the areas where the estimates have

been slightly padded — if not padded, then we've got to talk about

value for money and find out, when we get to the estimates of the

minister in charge of B.C. Systems, why they would charge a little

ministry like this nearly $300,000 to put some figures down. We need to

find out who's going where with whom perhaps, and why and with what,

and for how long. That's an awful lot of material going in to find out

these facts.

So there we are under vote 74: why is it

costing more in the deputy minister's office? What have we ordered up

to date on professional services? How about that data-processing charge?

MS. BROWN: I appreciate the minister's deferring to me.

would like to ask about one very small resort on Saltspring Island. A

letter was written to the minister, dated June 7 of this year, from a

resort named Spindrift. This is a very small resort with just five

cabins on five acres of land, of which four are a natural ecological

reserve. It has something in the neighbourhood of 3,000 feet of

waterfront, so it's a very beautiful, small resort. However, the owners

of that resort prepared a brochure which they wanted to have placed on

the ferries. The resort is open in the winter so it's used quite

extensively at Christmas and New Year's. They ran into some problems

because it seems to be ministry policy that a resort can give the

ferries no less than 3,000 brochures. For a resort that has only five

cabins, they certainly didn't want 3,000 visitors. They were willing to

put brochures on the ferries but not quite that amount. Also, they

found the cost of printing 3,000 brochures too high. I wonder whether

the minister ever took into account that the smaller resorts really

don't need to live by the same rules that the very large resorts live

by.

The other problem that they were having along these same

lines, which they brought to the attention of the ministry, was that

the basic costs that the resorts have to deal with — the taxes,

utilities, telephone and hydro — are already fixed costs and they have

no control over them. They're wondering if there shouldn't be some

flexibility with the smaller things, like paying for brochures, which

the ministry has control over. Maybe a resort like Spindrift, which

only has five cabins, should not be called upon to bear the cost of

printing 3,000 brochures, especially when they are only putting the

brochures on the smaller B.C. ferries, not on the ferries going to

Nanaimo, etc.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, to the

member for Surrey (Mr. Hall), our critic, the deputy minister's office

has two auxiliaries. You see their listing in terms of dollars, and not

in terms of employees. I'm sure the member can appreciate that the

workload in the deputy minister's office, with the increasing

objectives of the ministry's mandate, is very heavy. Because so much of

our effort relates to offshore and the marketing of offshore, it means

that he has increased efforts in terms of keeping abreast of everything

that is going on.

In the research area, this increase, which incidentally is not as high as we thought it might be, includes charges for the Beautiful British Columbia magazine. They were not reflected before. As you know, the Beautiful British Columbia

magazine is now totally computerized. It is now housing the results of

many of our surveys, including the ski survey, the travel statistics

and such things as the annual inventory of the accommodation directory.

These were all done manually

[ Page 8743 ]

before;

they're now being done by computer. Of course the handicapped

accommodation directory will be in there. Many of the services that

were done by hand before and were slow and cumbersome are now on the

computer service. This is allowing us a great deal more efficiency. It

also includes the operation of the tourism module for the province.

the member for Burnaby concerning Spindrift Resort, I think one has to

take a number of factors into consideration. Firstly, they are a very

small, charming and effective resort with only five cabins. Because

they are open year-round they would be getting better value for their

dollar through specific marketing practices and tying in with specific

tour operators. As you know, you can spend an incredible amount of

money in advertising and brochures and not have the impact and the

return that you think you will. If they were on the major ferries, it

would cost them more. It would cost them $40 to take

part in that

service. The 3,000 brochures would be a minimum because of the volume

of people. It wouldn't be wise for them to be there with their small

volume and their small accommodation.

In terms of the

smaller ferries, again they may wish to reflect upon the value they

would be getting for their dollar there. We find that there's good

impact in terms of brochures on ferries, but there is a wastage factor.

It depends on the size of your resort and the experience that you offer

as to whether it's of value. That has to be assessed on a pretty

definitive basis.

They would be having most of their

brochures, I believe, distributed through the Vancouver Island Tourist

Association. That's where, as you say, you get the biggest bang for the

buck, because they would take them with them to their trade shows.

That's where you're getting definite people contact with the brochure.

Brochures will do so much. But as we know in the ministry, and as most

of the regions in the industry know, you need that conveyance of

excitement and the opportunity for personal questions.

Also,

we're always happy to take their brochures with our staff to the trade

shows. If they wish any assistance from the ministry in terms of their

marketing program — whether or not they wish to take it — I'm certainly

very pleased to arrange for them to come in and meet with our staff,

who are very experienced.

MR. HALL: I thank the

minister for the answers. They certainly clear up that item on

data-processing. It's amazing that they would put the data-processing

charge in the policy, development and planning total, when they've got

supplies and services for Beautiful British Columbia

magazine and ministry publications down as $2,304,751. I certainly

accept the minister's statement that that's the way it is, but again,

that's almost like creative bookkeeping, in the sense that you've got

one specific expensive item, and a very important item — namely, the

update and upkeep of that excellent magazine — in against a research

vote, when it could probably be a legitimate charge and have been

netted out in your subheadings under the group account classification

of the Beautiful British Columbia magazine.

The

two auxiliaries are going to cost us almost $44,000. That averages out

to $22,000 apiece. Are they skilled auxiliaries? Are they clerical

types? What's the nature of those two auxiliaries? I suppose if they're

working in the deputy minister's office, they will be support for the

deputy minister's office.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: I'll

answer the first part of your question first. All data-processing is in

one place, under policy, development and planning for the whole

ministry.

MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, we've examined the

record of the subvotes in vote 74. We've noticed that there is 14

percent increase in some expenses and a 13.9 percent increase in other

areas that we find shouldn't be there. In keeping with our general

attitude throughout the estimates — I think we've done ten ministerial

estimates now — I'm going to ask the committee to consider a short,

sharp reduction in vote 74, just to bring it back into line with what

was available last year and not to spend money on extra office expenses

and so on. I therefore move that vote 74 be reduced by $50,058.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 20

Barrett

Howard

Lea

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Brown

Wallace

Hanson

Passarell

NAYS — 27

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Richmond

Ree

Mussallem

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 74 approved.

On vote 75: marketing services, S8,207,664.

MR. HALL:

Mr. Chairman, this is the vote in which the minister can do the most

work and the most good to improve the fortunes of the tourist industry

in the province. As I said this morning, this may well be the major

industry of the province this year, due to the unfortunate happenings

in our other two basic industries.

I noticed, Mr. Chairman,

that in dealing with market development and marketing and advertising,

the ministry officials had predicted as late as May of this year that

B.C. would have 8.5 percent more tourists this year and they would

spend up to $2.2 billion, which would be a 10 percent increase on last

year. However, the industry itself is not quite as optimistic. Mr.

Butterworth. president of the B.C. Hotels Association, is discussing a

fall-off in business of some 15 to 25 percent in the general hotel line

and as much as 30 percent in what is generally termed "the walk-in" or

"rubber tire business."

[ Page 8744 ]

The

minister herself pointed out that certain sectors were doing very well

in encouraging overseas visitors from Europe and Japan. Canadian

customs officials report a 25 percent drop in U.S. citizens passing

through the Douglas border crossing, which you know only too well, Mr.

Chairman, having once represented the area surrounding that crossing,

which I and the first member for Surrey (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) have

fallen heir to.

I asked this morning what was available to

the minister in the form of modern, responsive, quick programs to try

to redress the situation as we stand here today in the second week of

July. I'd like the minister to tell us in short what emergency programs

— if I can so characterize them — the ministry directorate, the four

people she talked about who really run the ministry with her, have got

going in order to responsively react to this missing 25 percent, this

fall-off in walk-in business, particularly in the areas that were

referred to. I'm sure she knows the

article well that appeared in our

daily newspapers at the beginning of this month.

The

marketing votes, Mr. Speaker, add up to nearly $7 million. That, of

course, includes staff, support services and so on, but is healthy

change at the disposal of a marketing and advertising agency. If I

remember correctly — and I've got a cribsheet, as it were, of the

estimates of the Department of Travel Industry in 1975-76 — when I went

through a similar exercise sitting on the other side of the House, we

had certain spot campaigns at that time that were going to shore up

weak areas and get into areas which were then experimental. I'm sure

that now, in the fullness of time, they are producing if not hordes of

visitors a reasonable return on that which was invested in 1974-75.

I'm

wondering if the minister could tell us what kind of reactive and

reactionary programs — I use the word "reactionary" not in the

political sense but in the sense of being alert to the situation — she

has to combat the kinds of subheadings and headlines we see in the Times-Colonist .

One headline says: "Hotels are Suffering During the Slump." The company

that compiles all B.C. statistics, Pannel Kerr Forster Campbell Sharp,

pointed out the occupancy rate in the lower end of Vancouver Island is

46.4 percent, which is 20 percent lower than the same period last year.

That general question on how alert the department is is fine when

you've got $5 million to have a great advertising campaign — whether

it's in Tokyo, London or Dülsseldorf — but how quickly, brightly and

smartly can we now get attuned to what is going on this year?

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

Mr. Member, I appreciate your concern. However, I would suggest that

there is not an emergency. The 25 percent U.S. drop that the member is

referring to is only for less than one night; one night and more, as

far as we know, is doing much better.

In reviewing what we

have in our figures, it would appear that we've had a good first

quarter for the province. There was some concern in the second quarter,

and we have great hope for the fall and winter. The United Kingdom

market appears to be moving ahead; the German market appears to be

moving ahead; and the Japanese market is showing a slight increase. Our

expectations there were that if we could hold that market, in view of

the fact that it's slipping in so many other places, we would be most

fortunate. So we are pleased about that.

We have to

recognize that we're getting conflicting reports from various people,

often reflecting information that is being taken out of context and

reflecting individual operations and management practices. We have long

been saying as a ministry, and I have certainly been saying as a

minister, that the type of tourism that we enjoyed in British Columbia,

where we could more or less count on creaming our local markets in

terms of attendance, are long since gone. Many other jurisdictions are

looking at our traditional markets for their benefit, as well as the

fact that tourism all over is much more competitive. Also, the

traveller today is much more discriminating, so it is incumbent upon

the industry itself, along with the government, to keep abreast of

marketing techniques and demands, and to openly work towards their

share of the tourism market.

We have been encouraging all

resorts and tourist facilities not only to look at the quality of their

service and their product but also to recognize that the visitor today

generally wants more than an overnight bed or a quick meal. They may

have times for that, but basically they are looking for more of an

experience. Individual management, when there's more competition in the

marketplace, just by nature of having more accommodation and facilities

in British Columbia to have their share will need to broaden their

base, see that their facilities are up to snuff and that the experience

they and their community can offer is there, as well as go out and seek

their share of the marketplace.

In terms of marketing

ourselves, I won't go into all the details, but the member is aware

that we've had three major overseas industrial tourism promotions — on

which I've been involved — which have been highly successful. This is

one of the reasons our German market is up.

As I mentioned,

we also have an overall basic strategy for the year, and we're

increasing tourism to a year-round industry. While one month might show

a decrease for one or more operators, it may be being picked up in the

spring and fall. So overall they could well be up for the year, but

they're having a more equitable year and that helps the employment. Our

basic marketing program is designed in such a way that we can fill in

if there is an emergency.

At this time I would have to

suggest, as I have before, that good news and credibility take a long

time to build. Bad news travels very quickly, and negative statements

made in British Columbia, as the hon. member knows too well, whether

there's fact to them or not, hit the wire service, travel and carry bad

news that in fact may not be the case. Mr. Plul, our assistant deputy

minister, has just come back from a west coast tour in which he checked

with all the outlets for our articles and pictures. He was on hotlines

and on TV and met with many tour operators and our own people. The one

problem that he did encounter was that some incorrect or misquoted

statements made by some people in the industry are being quoted down

there. That does have a negative effect. But once that's out, you

almost can't pick it up. We've tried in that area. I would have to

suggest that the hospital workers — the executive who have been

speaking without foundation and so foolishly and irresponsibly in this

area — could, in the long run, have an impact.

But we have

run a good, basic campaign. We have marketed well in cooperation with

the industry. The proper presentations have been made to hundreds of

tour operators, and that benefit is showing up.

We have our

friendship exchange program running, and we are intensifying the

efforts in terms of the value of the dollar in the American market. As

you know, it's a good bargain. We have a promotional program going

ahead which

[ Page 8745 ]

will

include a four-page ad this weekend in Washington state, which will

say: "Come on up while our dollar is down." Three-quarters of this ad,

I might add, is paid for by 50 of the operators in the province.

Our

marketing program is flexible. It's not so rigid that we can't adjust

it, and in many areas we do. We are accentuating familiarization tours

and the convention potential of British Columbia; and, as I mentioned,

Mr. Plul's travels up the coast are partially a sounding for us as well

as an extra assist to our promotion.

I would have to say,

Mr. Member, with great respect, that I believe tourism is up between 4

percent and 5 percent now, in terms of tourists themselves. I'll stand

with my predictions at this time. I would expect to see about a 10

percent to 11 percent dollar increase. I'll make a little wager with

the member. I hope I'm right. But if not, we'll have a Perrier party

together.

MR. HALL: I'm all in favour of parties. I

want to bet on the same side. I entirely agree with the minister that

the negative statements are the most difficult to get rid of in this

industry. I certainly wouldn't bet against an increase. I would want to

double the increase, and we should work the up-side of it.

Let

me finish, because I don't want to give the impression at all that I'm

grilling the minister in some awful way so that she's going to admit

that tourism will be down. That's not the point of the exercise at all.

The point is to see how quickly the ministry can respond in a single

way to a specific market or point of origin, and she's answered those

questions for me.

I will say, however, that in viewing in my

mind's eye what she has just said, it seems to me that she should spend

some money dealing with the headlines we're getting in the newspapers,

and perhaps indeed that she should be spreading joy about tourism to

combat the kind of headline of July 9 which said: "Tourist Industry

Facing Tough Times." Maybe the production of a quarterly statistical

report showing that we're not doing too badly — in fact, nailing down

those figures that you've just given us — is something you can look at

with your staff. That's certainly the kind of thing I'd like to

encourage. Knowing many of the staff, I know how busy they must be in

collecting the information and spreading the good word about British

Columbia. Anybody who lives in British Columbia is, as of course you

know, your best ambassador anyway.

Nevertheless, there is a

touch of profligacy here — just a little bit. I notice a 141 percent

increase in office furniture. There is nothing wrong with the chair

that I sat in. I won't be so cruel as to say you can fit in it, or is

it the other way round? I've forgotten; maybe I am being cruel. But

that's too much — that is, a 141 percent increase in office furniture

is too much. Advertising is also up. There is a touch of freedom there

that we'd like to see curtailed in terms of spending, and in keeping

with the rest of my colleagues, I've got to put a rein on that. I

therefore move that vote 75 be reduced by $1,474,646.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 20

Barrett

Howard

Lea

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Brown

Wallace

Hanson

Passarell

NAYS — 27

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Richmond

Ree

Mussallem

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 75 approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

The committee, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again,

Divisions in committee ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 58, Mr. Speaker.

INDIAN CUT-OFF LANDS DISPUTES ACT

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

In rising to introduce second reading of this bill, I would like to

take the members of the assembly briefly through some of the history of

the reserves of 22 Indian bands in this province. going back many

decades. This is the second time that a Legislature in British Columbia

has enacted legislation with respect to these particular matters, and

it is my belief, as a result of extensive negotiations which have taken

place since March 1977, that this should be the last time that the

Legislature of British Columbia will be obliged to deal with this

particular problem. The last time that legislation was discussed in

this chamber with regard to this matter was in 1919.

Following

the creation of the Crown colony of Vancouver Island in 1849, Governor

James Douglas and his successors carried out a policy of reserving

lands for the use and occupation of Indians within British Columbia.

Under the colonial powers that Governor Douglas exercised in those

years, he was able to identify and reserve lands which were appropriate

for the use and oOccupation of native Indian bands.

When

British Columbia joined Confederation in 1871,

article 13 of the terms

of union with Canada required the new province of British Columbia to

continue to set aside lands from time to time as Indian reserves. But

article 13 also stated in part: "The charge of the Indians and the

trusteeship and management of the lands reserved for their use and

benefit shall be assumed by the dominion government."

Within

a short time after the colony of British Columbia joined the

Confederation, serious disagreements arose between the province and the

dominion government over the size and number of Indian reserves and the

manner in which the government of British Columbia was carrying out its

responsibilities under the terms of

article 13 of the terms of

[ Page 8746 ]

union.

The new province maintained that to accede to the dominion's demand for

large reserves based on per capita acreage formulas, which were then

used in the prairie provinces, would hamper the settlement and

development of British Columbia by the increasing number of European

settlers who were arriving in this province. Unlike the prairie

provinces, with their vast areas of open fertile land, British

Columbia's mountainous terrain and heavy forest cover limited the

amount of land suitable for settlement. As might be expected, there was

a continuing conflict between what the Indians perceived as their

entitlement — and, indeed, what the dominion government officials

believed was the province's responsibility under the terms of union —

and the needs and desires of settlers coming to this province.

From

1876 onward, reserve allotment commissions spent years identifying and

reserving lands for Indian bands. Nonetheless, disputes continued

between the two levels of government over the number and size of

reserves and the province's reversionary interest in reserve lands. It

was then held by British Columbia that lands made into reserves would,

if they ceased to be occupied by the Indian bands, revert to the Crown

provincial. This was disputed by the Dominion government and was a

course, to the Indian bands as well.

In 1912 the federal

government appointed a special commissioner, Mr. J.A.J. McKenna, to

attempt to negotiate with the province a final settlement of these

continuing disputes. McKenna met with then Premier Richard McBride, and

as a result of those meetings, an agreement was reached which provided

for a joint commission to adjust the acreage of Indian reserves. It was

then being alleged that some Indian reserves were too large, that some

Indian reserves were too small, and that indeed some reserve

entitlements had not been fulfilled.

The McKenna-McBride

commission, as it became known, had the power to set aside additional

lands for reserves or to remove lands that it considered to be in

excess of Indian needs. However, under the terms of the agreement which

led to the establishment of the commission, lands could only be removed

or cut off — as it had been become popular to refer to the process —

with Indian consent. The commissioners appointed under the

McKenna-McBride agreement travelled throughout British Columbia for

three years, visiting Indian bands and assessing their need for land.

At all times the Indians were assured that no lands would be removed

from their reserves without their consent. Nonetheless, many Indians

opposed the work of the commissioners, feeling that the bands' wishes

would not be properly taken into consideration in decisions relating to

reserve allotments. I suppose in retrospect it might be said that the

Indians, who expressed such opposition, were proven right in the long

run.

In 1916 the commission submitted its report. Briefly,

it recommended that approximately 87,000 acres of land be added to

existing reserves and about 47,000 acres be cut off. Upon review of the

commission's recommendations, the amount cut off was later reduced to

about 33,400 acres. Following 1916 it remained for the governments to

adopt the recommendations of the McKenna-McBride commission and for the

federal government to obtain the consent of the Indians whose reserves

were to be reduced or cut off. In 1919 the Legislature of British

Columbia passed

an act authorizing the province to do such things as

necessary to give effect to the recommendations of the commission.

Early

in 1920 the federal deputy superintendent-general of Indian affairs

that the required federal legislation authorize the federal government

to effect cutoffs without Indian consent, if necessary. The federal

government recognized that it might be impossible to obtain Indian

consent because of the bands' antagonism, and the province was urging

it to get on with the business of implementing the commission's

recommendations.

On March 12, 1920, the Minister of the

Interior, the Hon. Arthur Meighen, introduced a bill in the House of

Commons to authorize the federal government to adopt the commission's

report. The bill said in part "The governor-in-counciI may order such

reductions or cutoffs to be effected without surrenders of the same by

the Indians, notwithstanding any provisions of the Indian Act to the

contrary." Mr. Meighen blamed agitators and others for convincing the

Indians not to provide consent.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Although

the passage of the bill may have been legally proper, the 22 Indian

bands that were affected as a result of that legislation felt that it

was a breach of the 1912 McKenna-McBride agreement. The bands persisted

in their grievances over the years, with both the federal and

provincial governments being pressed to resolve the dispute through the

return of the cutoff lands. Finally, discussions between the two

governments began in the mid 1970s, and members of this assembly were

involved in those discussions. In 1976 the federal and provincial

governments met to discuss the basis upon which discussion should take

place. Finally, in March 1977, at a meeting with a committee of the 22

bands, it was agreed that negotiations would begin in earnest.

The

Hon. Warren Allmand, who was then the federal minister, and I met in

Victoria in March 1977 with the committee members representing the 22

Indian bands to discuss the basis upon which tripartite meetings would

be held for the purpose of achieving a method of determining the

settlement of this long-outstanding problem.

Early in 1978

the two governments made a joint offer of settlement to the Indian

committee. Basically the province would return to reserve status the

approximately 30,000 acres which it still held under its control and

would negotiate the compensation with the Indian bands affected for

certain lands which the province might wish to retain for public

purposes. This, however, would be a decision resting basically with the

Indian bands. But it was our wish and belief — it has, in fact, proven

to be the case — that lands which have been clearly identified as used

for public purposes would, in the view of the Indian bands,

appropriately remain for such use. In addition, the province would

return, with interest, all moneys which it had received out of the sale

of cutoff lands and any resources from those lands. It would provide

compensation for physical damage to the lands which would be returned.

The

federal government, on its part, undertook to compensate the bands for

all lands which had been alienated: cutoff lands which had been sold to

third parties and were therefore incapable of return to the Indian

reserves. The Indian committee and representatives of the bands

involved in those negotiations made it clear that they would not be

expecting any individual who had acquired lands in this particular way

to surrender them back to the Indian bands, but they would accept

compensation in lieu thereof. That

[ Page 8747 ]

compensation

was to be on the basis of a formula which incorporated land values at

the time of sale. This proved to be a very serious stumbling block in

these negotiations. Negotiations continued, and the bands expressed

dissatisfaction with some portions of the offer, during which time two

federal elections intervened and talks were unfortunately delayed as a

consequence of changes in federal administration.

Early in

1981 members of the committee representing the 22 bands determined that

the committee itself should be disbanded so that negotiations could be

concluded between the bands individually and the federal and provincial

governments. Notwithstanding the fact that the committee disbanded and

left to the individual bands the conclusion of negotiations with

respect to their particular reserves, the basic principles under which

the settlements were to take place continued as I have enumerated them

earlier.

On February 12, 1982, agreement was achieved with

respect to the first of these settlements. I had the pleasure of

meeting with Hon. John Munro, federal Minister of Indian Affairs, and

with representatives of the Penticton Indian band, at which time the

two levels of government signed the formal agreement which would

resolve the Penticton Indian band reserve-cutoff problem. Under that

agreement, the province will return 12,243 acres of cutoff land, which

is still held as Crown land, and would pay to the Indian band the sum

of $1 million as full payment for the land which it is to retain. This

includes three small parks on the shores of Lake Okanagan. For its

part, the federal government will pay the band $13,200,000 as

compensation for the alienation of 1,800 acres of cutoff lands which

were disposed to third parties. The agreement, signed in February 1982,

was submitted to the members of the Penticton Indian band by way of

referendum conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Indian

Act, and the membership of the Penticton Indian band ratified the

agreement which had been negotiated with their band leaders,

This

is the first of what I expect will be agreements of a similar nature,

affecting the other 21 bands which will see the earliest possible

resolution of outstanding disputes with regard to these cutoff lands.

In order to ensure that the agreements that are entered into properly

dispose of this matter once and for all, this bill which is before us

today gives the necessary authority to the government of the province

of British Columbia to enter into these successive agreements,

commencing with the Penticton band agreement, to pay the funds and to

make use of Crown land — or both, as the circumstances may require — in

order to conclude the negotiations. Companion legislation will also be

introduced and enacted by the Parliament of Canada to like purpose. In

this way, with each of the Indian bands expressing their agreement

following negotiations — through a referendum process in which the band

members will be involved — and the governments dealing in accordance

with legislation authorizing the completion of those agreements, we

will finally see the end of this problem. It began well before the turn

of the century, by reason of activities associated with the creation of

reserves and the disputes which arose thereby, and of the unfortunate

in 1916 and subsequent years, as was agreed when the McKenna-McBride

commission was established,

We have many obligations to our

native people stemming from periods long before the years of which I

speak. I would hope that the good will and the sense of responsibility,

which has been clear through the course of these negotiations over the

past five years. will also apply to the resolution of those other

difficulties which we will be facing in the eventual resolution of

problems associated with our native people.

Mr. Speaker. I move second reading.

MR. LEVI:

The official opposition will support the bill. I want to comment on

some of the background, adding a little to what the Attorney-General

has said with respect to what has been a long-standing, difficult

problem.

I remember many years ago the former member for

Atlin, Frank Calder, telling me a story that was part of the legend of

his Nishga tribe. They used to tell a story of some time in the early

1800s. One day, while doing their various chores, they spotted a man

who appeared to have three legs. They got very curious and went over to

see this individual. It was a man who had a theodolite and he was

surveying. They asked him what he was doing and he said: "Well, we're

laying out a reservation," or a reserve, as we call it up here. They

didn't quite understand what it was all about or what was he doing.

Traditionally this was their land, and suddenly he was there carving up

their reserve as per what a white man conceived they should really be

entitled to.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that one of the things

one realizes when you negotiate with Indian people over the years as

the Attorney-General has done, and as I did when we were the

government, is that the unique difference between Indian and non-Indian

people is their perception of what land is. They talk about land in a

way that we do not talk about it. They talk about it with great

religious fervour. It is probably that more than anything that has kept

up this constant fight going back almost 100 years, particularly with

the Nishga people. But that's dealing with the Indian land claims.

Certainly in the cut-off land question, after the delivery of the

report by McKenna-McBride.... When one reads it and looks at the intent

of the report, frankly, it was a brutally racist document. It was the

white man imposing upon Indian people their standard of how they should

live under a great deal of pressure from people who wanted land. These

non-Indian people felt that they were more entitled to this land.

Consequently, there were a great deal of problems.

I can

remember Chief Stelkia of the Dog band near Penticton very well. He

indicated he was going to block Highway 97 in protest against the loss

of and the failure to return their cut-off land. They had lost, as I

recall, some 70 acres but were given 16,000 acres in return, which were

straight up a hill and of no value whatsoever to them. Half of the town

of Okanagan Falls is made up of what was previously cut-off land. It

wasn't until 1972, when the previous government came in, that a real

approach was made by the government to do something about this problem

on a provincial basis. I'm not now talking about Indian land claims;

I'm talking about the cutoff lands. As we viewed the problem, it's

difficult to separate the question of dealing with the cutoff lands and

dealing with the land claims. We conceived, after many discussions with

the Indian people, that we might come up with a process and formula

that would help us with the cutoff lands that could later be applied to

a future resolution of the Indian Land Claims Commission.

This

is where, I think, in view of what the Attorney-General has told us.

our approach differed quite radically from his. Fortunately we have a

solution to the problem. I want to explain, because I think that one

day somebody

[ Page 8748 ]

should

write a book about this whole process. If you conclude it in a

successful way, as the Attorney-General has indicated.... Certainly the

settlement with the Penticton band has been settled. There are

obviously more difficult settlements coming down the road. As these

lands get closer to what we know as urban areas they become greater

problems in terms of settlement value, how you evaluate the land and

all that.

Our approach, if I may put it that way, Mr.

Speaker, was that first of all the cutoff land question was purely a

provincial question between the Indians and the province, because the

province had the power to make the decision. We didn't need the federal

government involved. What we said to the Indian people was: "We will

deal with you directly, and then we'll go to the federal government and

say, 'We have returned these lands. You got half the original property

that was alienated. You participate on a cost-shared basis in that.' "

We made it so that we would not deal with the federal government on

cutoff lands; we would deal with the Indian people. What we did as a

result of that was to set up a commission. We appointed Judge Ross

Colver to chair it. Adam Eneas, the chief of the Penticton band,

represented the Indian interests, and we had the former member for

Alberni, John Squire, representing the government's position.

The only objective we had with that commission.... Some

of the members that were here might recall that I came into the House

on June 24 and made a statement. I will quote briefly from the

statement. I said:

This is a memorandum of understanding between the Government of the Province

of British Columbia and the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs cutoff lands

committee.

(1) It is agreed that as a symbolic gesture of good faith the Government of

British Columbia will return 100 acres of the cutoff lands that are alienated

vacant Crown lands by September 1, 1975. The decision as to which bands will

receive the land will be made by the Government of British Columbia.

(2) It is agreed the a cutoff lands committee will be constituted of three people....

That's what I just explained to you about the commission.

The

Indians didn't want us just to tell them that we were going to do it;

they wanted some gesture. We came up with the following: "We will

return, as quickly as possible, 100 acres to some of the bands so we

can show good faith." That was the process. What we were hoping to

learn from that process was, as the Attorney-General has described, the

whole question of evaluating alienated land; what you substitute for

what's not possible to return.

The whole business that you

have to deal with of land registry.... There was a whole, difficult

process that we wanted to be able to learn about. What was the

long-range objective? It wasn't just the settlement of the cutoff

lands. We were attempting to get some movement in respect to the Indian

land claims question itself, which goes beyond the cutoff lands. We

were going to use that process. That's why we had set up the

commission. We confined ourselves, again, in a gesture of good will. We

understood that it was practical that we said that we would undertake

to settle that question so we could move to agreements two years from

June 1975.

I'd like to pause to ask the Attorney-General one thing. Is Mr. Prelypchan still doing a lot of the legal work in this?

When we got into the whole business of dealing with the Indian question, we

were dealing with Indian people who were extremely well informed. They had an

Indian Lands Claims Commission. We had a Mr. Borthwick who was with the Lands

department, who really did some very excellent research. Later on we had a youngish

lawyer — he's a little older now — Mr. Prelypchan, who took an interest

in the whole question at that time and did some of the basic groundwork for

us.

The

important thing about the whole problem, which persisted for so many

years, and what the Indians maintained was an insult to them, was the

failure to consult. The Attorney-General referred to the legislation

that flowed from the McKenna-McBride commission. The correspondence is

interesting and reads like a history of the province: Meighen, who went

for a short time to be prime minister; Pattullo, who was lands minister

at the time; and the whole issue around consent. In those days

governments didn't think much about consulting Indians; they knew best.

That was the thing, I think, more than anything, on top of their

incredible understanding and feeling for land, on which this battle was

fought. It was long, it was arduous, it was not always something you

could agree with. I appreciate very much the position that the

Attorney-General was in over the years. It is not easy to try to right

what really amounted to over 100 years of shameful conduct by some of

the officials of this country, and we have to share in some of that

responsibility. We have a long way to go before we do complete justice

to our Indian citizens in this province.

I raised the issue

of the difference in process — the way we did it as a government versus

the way the present government has done it. It's seven years last June

that the original memorandum of understanding was signed. Had we been

able to move with some dispatch then — of course, there was a change of

government and a different philosophy — no doubt settlements could have

been done fairly quickly, and I suppose would have been less costly

than now. It is going to be costly; nevertheless, it's an obligation

position that the government of British Columbia could deal with this

question without involving the federal government in any discussions;

that we could simply go to them on the cost-shared approach afterwards.

Frankly,

that was the way we approached it with other programs too, because we

were aware that once you get involved in trying to get the federal

government to agree to anything, you can set aside ten years and figure

that maybe at the end of that ten years you might be lucky to settle

it. What we were looking at was a settlement; then we would do the rest

of the battle with the federal government. However, the government

chose to do it the other way. The minister said there was originally a

cutoff lands committee negotiating with the government, but they did

say at that time — and I remember it very well — that eventually they

wanted to move to individual bands negotiating their own land. That was

fair enough. We needed a vehicle to start it off. All in all, it is

very historical to be dealing with this legislation. We did try seven

years ago to get it going, but that's in the past. The main thing is

that we're still a long way from even the cutoff land settlements. Each

one has to be negotiated separately. No one in the public should be

critical of any of the process or, to some extent, of the cost. This is

a long-standing obligation that we have towards Indian people and we've

got to meet it. Otherwise, we cannot consider ourselves to be

democratic or to believe in that system. An

article in the Times-Colonist

on Thursday, July 8, 1982, said: "Settling Debts Tough Times." The

article ends on a bit of a plaintive plea. But there is absolutely no

question that the Indians deserve to have their

[ Page 8749 ]

claim

settled now. Non-Indians can only wish their governments had settled

when everyone could afford it. Well, we all wish that. However, in this

province it's only been in the last ten years that governments have

addressed it. The previous Social Credit government took a long, very

hard, stubborn stand and would not deal with it. Not often do we give

plaudits to the government, but I might say this. We started off the

process under the previous government, and to the credit of their

government they picked it up. I was not happy, because I thought it was

slow, but it's ended in this. We will pass the legislation.

asked the minister if, when we're out of committee, he would table a

copy of the agreement with the Penticton band, because presumably that

document will be, to some extent, the pro forma for the other

settlements. We would like to look at some of the.... It may not be,

because they might be dealing with entirely different amounts of land

or rural land versus urban land — well, that's going to be a really

interesting one.

So, Mr. Speaker, it's a good day for us.

It's a good start. We're at the beginning, I hope, of an eventual

settlement. If the Indian people are skeptical, then one cannot blame

them. It's actually taken us a hundred years to get to this point

today. However, the government certainly has our support on this

legislation.

MR. PASSARELL: To say the least, I'm

very pleased with this bill. It's been 60 years of waiting, as the

minister stated previously in his very long and detailed prepared

speech that he read to the House in his opening address on this bill.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the minister, you stated that this is the

last time this matter will be discussed. I certainly hope so because

we're discussing confiscation of land from the first citizens of this

country by a committee 60-odd years ago. They stole it from them. Now

we're debating a bill that should have been done 60 years ago. I'm

pleased that the government has finally come in with this bill. It's

been a long wait. I support it, and I'll be supporting the minister on

this issue.

But there are some topics to be discussed about

this. It was a confiscation, and now we're addressing it some 60 years

later. Why? Are our feelings hurt? Have we lost pride to the native

people of this province because of this commission that stole their

land? Or are we looking at it as an election gimmick? I certainly hope

that it's not the latter, because the native people of this province

have waited a long time for any government to bring in some type of

bill that addresses longstanding problems, and this particular issue is

some 60 years old. I think that we have many more problems to address,

that this bill is just the start. It's the tip of the iceberg when we

start addressing problems of the native people, the first citizens of

this province and this country.

It was three years ago in

one of my original speeches that I was addressing the minister

concerning statements that were made to the Nishga people six years

ago. At that time the minister stood up and said that his government

did not believe in land claims or aboriginal rights. Well, I certainly

hope that the minister has had a change of thinking, because talking

about confiscated land and what the commission did back in the early

1900s is just the tip of the iceberg.

We should be

addressing a much broader problem. That's the confiscation of the

aboriginal rights that were set out in 1763 by King George, in which he

guaranteed the first citizens a right to aboriginal title. We've come

back now with Bill 58, Indian Cut-off Lands Disputes Act.

his opening address the minister mentioned adjusting boundaries. I

would like the minister to clarify exactly what he means by adjusting

boundaries. Was it the commission that adjusted boundaries? When we

talk about the first citizens of this province, I think we have to look

at a much broader aspect, and start addressing the real problem: land

claims and aboriginal title.

I'd also like to ask the

minister about a statement he made to the Nishga tribal council about

six years ago. When are you going to fulfil the commitment you made to

Chief Gosnell and the Indian band? You made a statement to the Nishga

people about the problem of land claims and aboriginal rights. It's

been six long years. When are you going to fulfill your promise to the

Nishga people? You're the minister responsible for native affairs in

this province. When are you going to start addressing the problems of

aboriginal rights and land claims?

There are a couple of issues in the bill.

Section 4 says:

"Transfers of land. Where an agreement provides for a transfer

of land to Canada, it shall be made by a transfer of administration, control

and benefit of the land under

section 27 of the Land Act for the use and benefit

of the Indian Band, and shall be subject to (

a) the same exceptions and reservations

as those contained in the order of His Honour the Lieutenant Governor in Council,

numbered 1036 of 1938, and (

b) any lease or other interest existing in the land

at the date of transfer."

I'd like the minister's thoughts on that as pertaining to aboriginal rights.

second question concerns

section 5: "Money to be paid out of

consolidated revenue fund. Where an agreement provides for the payment

of money, the money shall be paid to Canada out of the revenue fund for

the use and benefit of the Indian band." Under this agreement. do the

bands involved in the Indian Cut-off Lands Disputes Act have total

control over that fund, or is it administered by Ottawa as Big Brother?

I'd like the minister's statements on those two issues.

In closing, I have to praise the minister on this bill; it's been a

long time coming. I've been in this house for three short years, and

it's the first reasonable bill concerning native people that I've seen

— the second one, I should say; we had the Fort Nelson.... In my riding

we have a bit of cutoff land outside of Kincolith.

My last question to the minister: now that you've been able,

through your legal people, to bring about this bill, when are you going

to sit down with the first citizens of this province and work out a

true and everlasting settlement of the Indian land claims and

aboriginal rights?

MR. LEGGATT: First. I'd like to

associate myself with the remarks of the previous two speakers and

congratulate the minister in beginning what will be a long and

difficult process in attempting to resolve native land claims.

Questions

still arise as to the responsibilities that we, as non-native citizens

of this country, have to native citizens. Throughout this province

there is a tremendous disparity in the economic success of various

bands. Some are in terrible poverty, living a disgraceful existence by

any measure you wish to use — United Nations measure or any other one.

Others are doing very well.

[ Page 8750 ]

While

we welcome this legislation as a beginning of settlement of an old and

very grave wrong that has been committed against native citizens by

those of us who came here from western Europe, we now have to do more

than simply attempt to settle these claims. We have to assist those

native groups who have the opportunity of assisting themselves. In many

cases it's simply a matter of providing leadership and assistance to

the band council. For example, native people in my own constituency

occupy some of the most desirable lands, and yet they remain

undeveloped and of no economic benefit to the few native residents who

occupy those lands. Surely we can, in concert and by agreement, begin

to provide economic help — not a handout, but the beginnings of

economic success for these bands which live in extreme poverty

throughout the province.

Certain questions have been asked

of the minister, and I hope that in his

summary he will direct his

attention to them. One of my concerns continues to be

section 5, which

says: "Where an agreement provides for the payment of money, the money

shall be paid to Canada out of the consolidated revenue fund for the

use and benefit of the Indian band." It doesn't say for the use and

benefit of the Indian band absolutely. This may be a federal trust

provision that the minister has no control over, but the fact that

native funds are not under exclusive control of native people hasn't

always been of benefit to them. The amount of interest that native

deposits have received at the federal level are really close to a

national disgrace in the use of those funds — and the lack of revenues

that native people have received.

Without looking askance at

this, it's a desirable first step. The minister is to be congratulated.

I think he does have considerable sensitivity to the native problem. We

can be defined as a civilized society only to the extent that we treat

our native people fairly. We have a chance in Canada and British

Columbia to provide a different history than was provided in the United

States. It's really one of our opportunities to say what we are as

Canadians: that as Canadians we are a compassionate people who

understand the injustices of the past and have the will to correct

those injustices. If it means temporary political problems and if it

means that we are going to have to use some of our resources to be

fair, this is just the minimum that has to be done.

The

theft of Indian lands by the McKenna-McBride scandal — to call that a

commission is a misnomer — is a blot on the history of this province.

It is a wrong that will live with us forever. Those boundaries were not

adjusted, as the minister suggested; they were stolen. It was theft of

Indian lands and theft of prime land all over this province. The

motivation was sheer greed. The motivation was that we could take

advantage of a weak administration in terms of the local band councils,

and we did take advantage of them. It is a wrong that we all have to

live with. I think the minister has made a very good first step in

trying to redress some of the wrongs of the McKenna-McBride commission.

But we have to go beyond that and recognize that there is such a thing as an

aboriginal right: that is, people who occupied these lands from time immemorial

have a right to be compensated when they are taken away from them. Just as the

British Crown signed treaties with native groups all across Canada.... Why

did they sign those treaties? Obviously, they signed those treaties because

we recognized that those native people had rights over those lands. We signed

the treaties to extinguish those rights. To say now that there is no such thing

as an aboriginal right is to deny the history of Canada, when the British Crown

signed treaties all across this country attempting to extinguish those rights.

There is a good deal of, I think, scaremongering going on by people who oppose

aboriginal rights on the ground that, my gosh, we can't give the province

back to native people. Native people aren't asking for that. They recognize

that there are a very few native people appointed to the bench; it would be

very unlikely that native people will make the ultimate decisions on what is

fair compensation, but they do ask that that injustice be acknowledged and compensated

for. The concept of aboriginal right — yes, and aboriginal title — is our opportunity

here in Canada and here in British Columbia to say to the world that we, for

the first time as western European colonizers, are going to treat the indigenous

people with a sense of justice and fairness — yes, and we are going to apply

the Christian ethic to settling those disputes.

congratulate the minister for beginning. He has a long way to go, but I

think and I hope that we in this chamber can reach a consensus that we

have about a massive obligation to the first citizens of this province.

It's about time we started to meet that obligation.

MR. NICOLSON:

Mr. Speaker, I too welcome this step in something that certainly is not

an insurmountable problem, but one that is finally being addressed. I

rise, I suppose, with some mixed feelings, because I am not convinced

that all the injustices of the McKenna-McBride commission, or even some

of the well-intentioned decisions of the McKenna-McBride commission,

are going to be rectified by this act.

I note that in the

interpretation

section of this act it says that "cutoff lands means

lands that had before 1916 been appropriated by the province for the

use and benefit of Indians" but that pursuant to the Indian Affairs

Settlement Acts of 1919 and 1920, and the report of the McKenna-McBride

commission, had been cut off.... Well, I don't want to go into great

detail, Mr. Speaker.

I have read portions of the

McKenna-McBride commission, and I have them before me now. I would like

the minister — and I think this is about the third time that I'm asking

on behalf of the Lower Kootenay Indian band, located at Creston — to

give some serious consideration to their claim that there are portions

of land which are Indian cutoff lands. I direct the minister to the

McKenna-McBride commission report, and if he looks at the map of the

Kootenay agency in volume 2, which is the first fold-out map in there,

he will see that the only sort of yellowish-brown coloured coded

section that indicates cutoffs or reductions is in that area — the

Lower Kootenay Indian band, at the south end of Kootenay Lake, near

Creston.

Mr. Speaker, there was an order given in 1913, and

I'm wondering what the minister means by "lands that before 1916 had

been appropriated by the province for the use and benefit of Indians."

Does he mean by that the official

schedule of Indian reserves of 1913?

This is rather loosely worded. I point out that this particular area,

which I say is cutoff land, was first of all set out by the commission

in an order of 1915; in fact, there was a minute of the commission on

March 24, 1915, which confirmed that this particular piece of land,

which is about 1,800 acres, would become part of the Indian reserve.

But that was subsequently rescinded in a report which, I believe, was

made in January 1916. The supposed reason for that deletion was that

that land had been granted as a timber-harvesting licence or permit, I

suppose in perpetuity at that time, to some people who actually had

just taken over

[ Page 8751 ]

the

land and displaced the Indians. But subsequently, of course, that land

has not been in forestry production for probably 50 years.

Another

thing that I'd like the minister to recognize is that a large portion

of that land was unalienated. Recently I think several hundred acres

were given to the town of Creston for the purpose of building an

airport. I brought this to the attention of the Minister of

Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) at the time, yet the

government has gone blithely on and has ignored the claim of these

people and has interpreted that they are not part of the cutoff lands

group. I don't think they were identified as part of the cutoff lands

group when we were government, and while I've met with the band chief

and members of the band council on numerous occasions, I'm not so

certain that even they were aware of this particular thing.

I've

even read a transcript of the hearing which took place back in 1916.

It's very blurred, I guess it's been duplicated so many times; it's

very, very hard to read. I have made available to the band a copy of

the royal commission report, at least volume 2, which mostly

encompasses their particular case. I would like the minister, in

closing, to tell me if the door is indeed closed to the Lower Kootenay

Indian band or whether some very serious consideration will be given,

and whether they will be heard. It's not a matter of the Lower Kootenay

Indian band pursuing this vigorously with the government; I think the

government has to pursue this vigorously with the band. The onus is on

us. The lands they were given — there were a few adjustments made at

that time — were all swamp lands. Because of the Libby Dam and because

of some dyking improvements which were made years and years later for

other interests, those lands have now become valuable agricultural

lands, but at the time they were given to them they were very poor

lands. The commission report points out that they would only be useful

if dyking and drainage works were put in place, and it's recommended

that the government do this. Well, those things were never done.

would hope that if this act is to address the issue of cutoff lands....

That's one thing I've always felt was certainly a manageable task as a

starting point in terms of native land claims. I would like to know if

the government will vigorously pursue and take government to the people

and meet with the Lower Kootenay Indian band and set up meetings and

listen and look at this. I have looked at the reports several times. I

don't pretend to be a lawyer and I'm certainly not a judge, so it

doesn't have any bearing on what the resolution of this matter is going

to be, but I say that it is worthwhile that the government should

pursue this, and that these people shall always have to pursue this

until some justice is given in this particular case.

I will

say this about the McKenna-McBride report: these are two of the

volumes, and if some of the royal commissions that have been done in

recent days were done with this thoroughness, at least people might

have a chance to unravel things several years later. I think that

documentation is contained in this report as the basis of some kind of

fair settlement.

The Lower Kootenay Indian band has been

excluded, but I report to the minister again that according to the

mapping of this, lands were cut off from the Lower Kootenay Indian

band. Minutes of the commission of 1915, which is prior to the date set

out in this act, indicated that a decision had been made to give them

lands, but those lands were later withdrawn. I report that those

requests were obviously in in 1913, and these were long-standing

claims. Yet these people are not a party to the list of negotiations

that you have before you. I urge that they be included.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Many of the questions posed today during the course of this debate

should more properly be dealt with at the committee stage of the bill.

However, I'm very happy to respond to them if there's some indication

that we would move to committee by leave now.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members. If the debate would be more orderly in committee, perhaps

we could move to committee immediately and then at least have orderly

debate. Is that agreed?

AN HON. MEMBER: The minister has asked leave.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

There is some indication that leave may be granted if I respond during

the course of this debate. That can be done very easily, Mr. Speaker,

because as far as the principle of this bill is concerned, I think

members on all sides of the House accept it. I think there needs to be

something said in clarification, and I'm sorry if, in my opening

remarks, I was not as clear as members might have wished.

First

of all, this bill is not a bill which touches upon the question of

aboriginal rights, aboriginal title or general Indian land claims, as

those issues have come to be spoken of in this country in the past

decade. This bill deals with the resolution of a very particular

problem which affects some Indian reserves, and as such does not fall

within the aboriginal claims issue. I might say, however, that I'm sure

members in this chamber — indeed members in the legislatures of each of

the provinces, and members in the House of Commons and in the Senate of

Canada — will have, over succeeding months and years, adequate

opportunity to express themselves on that particular question. The

issue of aboriginal rights and aboriginal title, as those expressions

are defined, for each person, will require the consideration of the

people of Canada for some considerable time. I can assure this House

that the government of British Columbia will be involved in the

meetings at the national level to deal with these matters, commencing I

believe next February.

The member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell)

asked when I was going to sit down and talk with the Nishga people

about the matters we began to discuss on January 12, 1976. Officials of

this government and officials of successive governments in Ottawa have

met with the Nishga people; indeed, officials at both levels of the

government are meeting with representatives of the Nishga band on July

22 to continue the discussions which have been taking place over the

years. There has been no resistance on the part of the government of

British Columbia to meet at any time with the Nishgas and with their

federal counterparts, and we look forward to the continuing

discussions. I believe the meetings on July 22 will deal with the

subject of the fishery resource, which is one of the elements of the

Nishga claim.

Some statements were made during the course of

debate about the McKenna-McBride agreement and the McKenna-McBride

commission. I suppose it depends on how one views the work done by that

commission, but I was startled at the severity with which some of the

members spoke of it. The word "confiscation" was used, and words

importing to Mr. McKenna and Premier McBride an attitude with respect to

[ Page 8752 ]

their

work which, as I read the history, is not justified, It might be true

if you looked at the debates that took place in 1919 and 1920 in the

federal House and Senate with respect to this legislation. It might be

true if you examine some of the correspondence that passed between the

this issue of getting the consent of the Indians, which was stipulated

by McKenna-McBride — no reduction without consent. If you were to read

some of those debates and some of that correspondence, you might have

some reason to speak critically, but I don't think McKenna-McBride are

themselves entitled to the kind of criticism that has been levied

against them today.

It talks about boundary adjustments. It

was a very rough approach on a population basis with the evidence which

was available to the McKenna-McBride commission in the years 1912 to

1916. Things were not as sophisticated then as they are today. If they

failed in their objective, I don't believe they are to be criticized,

when one recognizes the difficulty there was in travelling about this

province and the difficulties that existed in meeting with the Indian

bands, identifying who the bands were and indeed identifying where the

reserves were. For those bands that didn't have any reserves at all at

that time and who were entitled to reserves under the terms of the

commission, they were under extreme difficulty. I do ask the members to

recognize that, as a result of the commission's recommendations, about

three times as much land was added to reserves, or made available to

reserves, than was withdrawn. Eighty-seven thousand acres were made

available to the Indian bands as the result of those recommendations;

only 33,000 were removed.

The member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) indicated that we would be

approaching some settlement problems which would be difficult because

of the proximity of the reserves to urban areas and the problems of

evaluation. Let me hasten to say that the Penticton reserve cut-off

problem is not a simple one, and it took us directly into the area to

which the member makes reference. The 1,800 acres which had been

disposed of, and could not be returned, are indeed in the heart of

downtown Penticton. This was one of the difficulties that the

negotiators faced with the evaluation of those lands, which are now

part of a major urban centre. So we've approached those, and we think

we have learned, from the techniques used in the Penticton settlement,

much of what will assist us as we deal with other bands in urban areas.

That's

not to say that the identification of settlements for those bands in

the rural outlying areas and the remote areas of the province is going

to be that much easier. Over the years transmission line rights-of-way

and gravel pits, etc., have impinged upon those far northern reserves,

and the evaluation of compensation will have to be carefully undertaken.

do want to make one thing clear. I mentioned in the course of my

opening remarks that the committee formed by the 22 Indian bands for

the purpose of these negotiations disbanded. I would not wish it to be

thought that this decision was made by the two levels of government and

that we refused to deal with the committee; indeed, it was the decision

of the Indian bands themselves. The committee had done the task that it

set out to do. It carried the negotiations to a stage where the

necessary differences arising from the problems of settlement with each

band made it appropriate that the negotiations then proceed on a

band-for-band basis. They had resolved the general principles upon

which settlements would be founded. We then got to the stage where the

decisions with regard to what the Penticton settlement should be would

naturally be determined by their band leaders in the same way that

other Indian bands would deal with particular incidents associated with

their band settlements.

Now as to the question of the money,

the money that has been paid or is payable with respect to the

Penticton settlement.... A million dollars comes from the provincial

government. That money has been paid. It's presently being held in

trust, and it will be held in trust until such time as federal

legislation is passed. The income from that million dollars will go

into the band's revenue account. Therefore it is immediately available

to them: it's under their control. I am advised that the million

dollars will go into the band's capital account and then falls under

the rules that are established by the federal department. The same, I

understand, will be the case with respect to the $13.2 million which

goes from the federal government into the settlement.

share the concern of the members who have spoken on this issue. For too

long, I believe, the federal department has exercised a paternalistic

attitude towards the funds of Indian bands. Many Indian bands have

shown themselves to be fully adept at dealing with their own

properties. Indeed, they've been encouraged to do this by the federal

government. Yet when they have the opportunity to deal with large sums

of money to be used in the interests of the band, the federal

government seems reluctant to allow them to obtain the kind of

qualified advice that is available. I think this is a mistake. They are

having continuing discussions on this issue, spearheaded by the Indians

at Sechelt, who have an admirable plan, and by the Indians at Fort

Nelson, who this very afternoon are dealing with this problem at

meetings in Vancouver with federal and provincial officials. I hope

they will be successful in convincing the federal government that their

attitudes of paternalism with respect to these funds should be

radically changed.

The legislation is really quite clear

with respect to the use of land; it is a result of our discussions with

Indian bands during the course of negotiations. The Indians clearly

indicated that they would like to have the lands returned to them. When

we pointed out to them that in some instances those lands have been

encumbered by leases, the Indians said: "We are quite prepared to take

our lands back with the leases still in place. We will act as the

landlords with respect to those leasehold interests, and as they expire

we will renew them or whatever, as the case may be." We are about to

proceed with negotiations with the Squamish band, which involved some

very significant leasehold interests. The Squamish band has said: "We

have no difficulty in dealing with those matters. We can act as

landlords just as well as the provincial government." That is why the

legislation permits us — it isn't mandatory — to transfer the lands

with leasehold interests involved.

The member for

Nelson-Creston has raised the issue of the Lower Kootenay Indian band

with me, and I apologize for not responding at an earlier date. We have

examined all documents and maps that define the Indian cut-off land

problem, and we cannot identify the Lower Kootenay Indian band as a

participant in this particular difficulty. We've been through all the

correspondence; we've referred to the various orders-in-council

associated with this particular matter, and we have been unable to

identify that the Lower Kootenay Indian band and the lands to which you

refer fall within the ambit of the cut-off land problem.

[ Page 8753 ]

Interjection.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

The member asks if that is the end of it. The answer is no. In dealing

with Indian land matters, we find from experience that indeed there

never is an end. I have no hesitation in saying to the member that if

the leaders of the Lower Kootenay Indian band have any material they

would like to present to me which they believe establishes their

entitlement to become part of the Indian cut-off land matter, or if

they have any other claim to those lands as part of their reserve, they

will find me a ready and willing listener.

Mr. Speaker, with those few remarks, I move second reading of this bill.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I ask leave to refer Bill 58 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration now.

Leave not granted.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I move Bill 58 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Second reading of Bill 66, Mr. Speaker.

UTILITIES COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Speaker, I just have a few remarks before moving second reading of

this bill. In the last few years energy has emerged and certainly

remains today as one of the most critical issues of our age, not only

here in British Columbia but everywhere in the world. Bearing this in

mind, the provincial government moved in 1980, as part of its program

to work toward energy security for British Columbia, to restructure

responsibilities for managing the province's energy resources. One of

the major components of the restructuring was the establishment of the

British Columbia Utilities Commission through the B.C. Utilities

Commission Act of that year.

The introduction and passage of

that legislation marked a new era in energy management for the

province. It provided the tools with which the government, in

consultation with the people of the province, could begin to manage our

energy future in an effective and responsible manner. I think I could

say, Mr. Speaker, without any fear of contradiction that the

legislation has been recognized across North America as a first-class

vehicle for ensuring that energy development and use is addressed in a

comprehensive manner, taking into account the benefits and costs of

projects and making certain they meet both the short- and long-term

goals and needs of our province.

This amendment bill now

before the House is designed to make us even better able to fulfil that

mandate of energy stewardship and to work toward our goal of energy

security. A very important provision of the bill is for the careful

scrutiny of takeovers and mergers of utilities. It's the government's

position that utilities are established and regulated for the benefit

of the general public and the customers which they have the

responsibility to serve. A utility's corporate structure and ownership,

therefore, must be subject to scrutiny and, where necessary, subject to

control to ensure that the public interest is served.

Three

new sections amplify the provisions of the old act in this regard.

First of all, recognizing that share issues are as important a way of

raising capital as borrowing, the commission's approval is required for

all ways that utilities raise capital. This extends the provisions of

the old act from the scrutiny of borrowing alone. Secondly, the

commission must examine and approve concentration of ownership by an

individual or individuals acting in association of more than 20 percent

of the shares of a utility. Thirdly, mergers and takeovers of utilities

must be reviewed by the commission and, if found to be beneficial in

the public interest, recommended to cabinet for final approval. The

bill provides for these changes to have the force of law effective

immediately.

In addition, the legislation enacts new. more

flexible rules relating to the sale of surplus power services. These

changes are designed to remove institutional barriers to the

development of power, including electricity and heat, by private

surplus energy producers. Private power has an importance to the

province's energy and industrial fabric which goes far beyond its

relatively small — about 5 percent — proportion of British Columbia's

total electrical capacity now.

In the Utilities Commission

Act of 1980 some provision was made to allow for private electrical

producers to sell power which was surplus to their own needs. However,

this gave no encouragement to development which served the needs of

both private industry and other power consumers, and it was limited to

electricity. With the increasing costs of energy and the growing

attention being applied to conservation and careful stewardship of our

resources now, it is desirable to take a more positive and

future-oriented approach, not only to remove the institutional barriers

to private power sales but to provide encouragement to new developments

and to new technologies.

The changes will broaden the types

of eligible power producers from industrial to all kinds of companies

and to all kinds of power, including electricity, steam and heat. In

this regard the amendments will streamline the procedures of the 1980

act, which involved the review and agreement of the Utilities

Commission and cabinet before significant amounts of power could be

sold.

In addition we will provide an independent

price-setting mechanism to replace the unilateral purchasing power of

B.C. Hydro and a price-mediation mechanism to assist private bargaining

and allow for the approval for purchase of privately generated power

before the development has been installed.

Another important change, Mr. Speaker, is one which will provide for the expertise

and, if warranted, the financial assistance of government to someone proposing

a private power development. This is already started in some pilot studies and

test cases: the change we propose will formalize this framework.

The

bill also provides for changes in the provisions which now regulate the

petroleum industry. These provisions have never been fully required.

Existing regulation of trading standards will now become the

responsibility of the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs under

their legislation. At the same time, provisions relating to emergency

regulation and allocation of petroleum products are placed in the

Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources Act.

[ Page 8754 ]

These

emergency demand-restraint measures allow for flexibility, so that if

the emergency is national in scope, the province is able to integrate

its emergency responses with the programs undertaken by federal

authorities, while also retaining the ability to respond to our own

emergencies, should they occur within the province.

Another

change in the legislation would allow the designation of a single

commissioner to conduct a one-person hearing into energy matters under

the act. Such a designation would be made by me or by the chairman of

the commission.

At present no latitude exists for the appointment of a single commissioner

hearing. Situations may arise where advice on a specific subject matter is sought,

and a one-person commission would be more appropriate than — or at least

just as satisfactory as — a three-or-more-person commission. For example, the

natural gas surplus inquiry conducted by Dr. George Govier was set up by necessity,

because we weren't allowed to do it under the provisions of the Ministry

of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources Act.

also propose to amend the legislation to authorize the minister to

invite applications for energy project and removal certificates. As the

natural gas allocation-process proposal call procedures illustrate, if

the best project is to be selected, then competing applications should

be identified and compared in a common time-frame. Unless there is the

power to call for competing applications within a specified period,

each application must be treated separately, which is overly regulatory

and bureaucratic in many ways. In addition, comparison of competitive

projects is impossible, unless applications are submitted voluntarily,

and this doesn't necessarily allow the choice of the best possible

project.

A number of smaller changes have also been made to

improve the act. They include, for example, simplification of the

duties of the secretary of the commission, tightening of some

enforcement measures and their consolidation in one section, allowing

the Utilities Commission to specify the information it requires in

applications for certificates of public convenience or necessity, and

enabling the costs of regulation to be recovered when these costs

should not fall upon the general taxpayers of the province.

summarize, Mr. Speaker, the changes I have outlined and the other

measures in the act which will be debated as we move into committee

stage have been designed to further enhance the quality of the existing

legislation and to strengthen areas where we believe some weaknesses

exist at the present time. I move second reading of Bill 66.

MR. D'ARCY:

I want to compliment the minister on the good reading job of the

speech. This is essentially a committee bill, but I do have some

remarks to make on it in second reading.

First of all, the

changes which permit the Utilities Commission and the government to

allow private industry in the province to have a much freer rein in the

sale of surplus power, whether it be to utilities or to direct

consumers, are changes that we in the opposition welcome. Indeed, it's

a change that we have been asking for for a number of years. It was

clearly in our brief to the Utilities Commission relative to the

Cominco and West Kootenay Power applications last August in Kelowna.

would also like to add that the provisions will allow industry to,

hopefully, get into the business of localized electrical generation and

small hydro in industrial operations on an at-site basis. With some

knowledge of what the ground rules are going to be further down the

road.... One of the complaints we are constantly hearing from industry

in British Columbia is that this government has allowed itself far too

much discretion to change the ground rules midway through an investment

decision having been made, and this makes it very difficult for

industry to plan ahead. They do not want to be in a position where

goalposts can be moved or anything can be changed, as the saying goes,

in the fourth quarter. I certainly related to those concerns,

particularly in these economic times.

I note that the

changes in the takeover aspects as they relate to the TMA bid on Inland

Natural Gas are clearly closing the barn door after the horse has

bolted. Our concern in the opposition is not that this or any

government should have any unreasonable powers in terms of interfering

in the marketplace. What we are concerned about is that where you have

a regulated monopoly dealing with a public resource — which is what

you're dealing with in a utility — the interests of residential,

industri