1995 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 35th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MAY 25, 1995

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 20, Number 9

[ Page 14537 ]

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

G. Campbell: I'd like to introduce to the House representatives of the Coalition of B.C. Businesses, who are here in Victoria today to meet with elected officials on all sides of the House. I hope the House will make them all welcome.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm delighted today to welcome two people to the gallery who have served well in their communities. We have with us today Sam Rizvi, who is the coordinator of the B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities, and Mr. W.G. Fraser, who is the president and CEO of B.C. Rehab. They have served all people with disabilities well and effectively, and I ask the House to make them both welcome.

F. Garden: In the precincts today were 14 grade 6 students from Barlow Creek Elementary School in Quesnel. They were accompanied by their teacher Marguerite Hall. There were also several adults with them: Terri Blair, Jodi Baxter, Mike Gutfriend, Sandy Gutfriend, Mike Merrick, Cindy Zilmer, Charlene Lawrence, Darla Madland and Donna Hoemberg. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

Hon. J. Cashore: My daughter-in-law Donna, wife of my son Ben, is in the gallery. She's accompanied by a very good friend from France, Vincent Bonnot. And in my office is my grandson Walter, who is just over a year old; he's being cared for well there. Would the House please join me in making them all welcome.

Hon. B. Barlee: We have five students, actually, from W.E. Kinvig School in Surrey. They are as follows, because I think their names should be in Hansard: Nano Hawa, grade 7; Erica Wilson, grade 7; Paul Young, grade 7; Niki Beck, grade 6; and Kelly Clark, grade 6. The principal is Ken Cooper -- and there's the grade 3 teacher, Rosie Brinkert.

As well, I should introduce the following exchange students from South Africa: Bradley Putzier, Darren Korte, Delia Adams and Bronwyn Brown. The teacher is Miss Heather McCracken, and the principal is Mr. Norman Prentis. Please afford them all a very warm welcome.

G. Janssen: Visiting us today from the beautiful city of Port Alberni is Christa Schiffelers, who is also from near my hometown in Holland. She is accompanied by my mother, Maria Janssen. I ask the House to make them welcome.

J. Dalton: Tomorrow the Canadian rugby team will be kicking off its first game of the third World Cup, against Romania. But in reality, it's a British Columbia team, captained by Gareth Rees of Victoria. I want all members to know that this morning, I got up at 6:30 to watch the first game, in which the host country of South Africa defeated the defending champions, Australia, 27 to 18 in an outstanding game of rugby. I had the good fortune to be at the first World Cup in '87 in New Zealand, and I quite frankly would like to be in South Africa today to watch the Canadian team, hopefully, do well.

I would ask the House to join me in wishing the Canadian team all the best in its endeavours tomorrow.

Deputy Speaker: Happily, we have our own scrum.

The Minister of Housing, Recreation and Consumer Services.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm pleased to introduce representatives from the Housing Council of Upper Bavaria, who are here from Germany to explore housing issues in British Columbia. Leading the group are Hermann Schuster, president of the regional council of Upper Bavaria, and Kurt Weishausl, manager of the housing board. Would the House please make all of these gentlemen welcome.

G. Wilson: I'd like to have the House welcome today -- and I know that the member for Columbia River-Revelstoke would join me in welcoming him -- Rod Drown, who is the director of electoral area A, from the Columbia-Shuswap Regional District. He is someone who is down today and who listened to the debate with dismay, or at least in part with some dismay, I think. But would the House please make him welcome.

L. Fox: This afternoon, sitting with the Coalition of B.C. Businesses up in the gallery, is an individual, Mr. Tom Toynbee, who is a longtime friend of mine. The reason I introduce him to the House is that he served as the chairman of BCBC from its inception until two years ago and in that capacity served British Columbians well. Would the House please make him welcome.

Introduction of Bills

CRIMINAL RECORDS REVIEW ACT

Hon. C. Gabelmann presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Criminal Records Review Act.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

I am pleased to introduce Bill 26, the Criminal Records Review Act. This bill is one of several strong measures being taken by this government to help prevent the physical and sexual abuse of children. Under this legislation, criminal record checks will be mandatory for anyone who works with children or who may have unsupervised access to children in the ordinary course of their employment, and who is employed or licensed by or receives operating funds from the provincial government. The legislation will apply to applicants as well as to people currently working in these positions.

[2:15]

Criminal record checks will help to screen out those people whose criminal records indicate that they may present a risk of physical or sexual abuse to children. However, criminal record checks should not be regarded as a substitute for vigilance and good hiring practices. This is why the government is placing a strong emphasis on education in helping to prevent child abuse.

[ Page 14538 ]

This legislation has been developed with the assistance and support of many individuals and organizations who will be covered by the act. I would like to thank all of these people for their efforts in helping to create this legislation, which has achieved a successful balance between the protection of individual privacy and the protection of children.

Bill 26 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

FIRE AND POLICE SERVICES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Hon. D. Miller presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Fire and Police Services Collective Bargaining Act.

Hon. D. Miller: I move that Bill 35, the Fire and Police Services Collective Bargaining Act, be introduced and read for the first time.

This bill is being introduced to facilitate collective bargaining for firefighters and police officers and their employers. The bill will permit unions representing firefighters and police officers, or an employer of fire and police services, to have access to arbitration for the purposes of obtaining a final and binding resolution of a collective bargaining dispute.

Access to arbitration is defined in a rather unique way, which will become apparent when members study the bill. The legislation is intended to support rather than replace collective bargaining. The act contains provisions to ensure a balanced decision that reflects the concerns of both unions and employers. This act guarantees a process for addressing issues in a bargaining dispute without compromising the continuation of services critical to the protection of human life and property.

Bill 35 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

Deputy Speaker: Before I recognize any members, members will find on their desks a memorandum from me concerning question period guidelines. This is a re-issue of a document distributed by our Speaker in April 1994. I would ask and encourage members to review these guidelines. For the present, let me refer members to two very brief statements from Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, twentieth edition. On page 337, May says:

"The purpose of a question is to obtain information or press for action; it should not be limited to giving information, or framed so as to suggest its own answer or convey a particular point of view, and it should not be in effect a short speech."

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order!

On the subject of answers to questions, Erskine May has the following to say, on page 345 of the twentieth edition: "An answer should be confined to the points...in the question, with such explanation only as renders the answer intelligible...." I hope all members will be guided by these words.

PHYSICIAN SUPPLY IN FORT ST. JOHN

L. Reid: My question is to the Minister of Health. As the minister is aware, there is a critical physician-supply shortage in Fort St. John. Fort St. John has four times the number of patients per doctor as the provincial average, and eight times the number of patients per doctor as the lower mainland. Fort St. John is in a physician-supply crisis. Can this minister tell the people of Fort St. John when their community's critically low doctor-patient ratio will end?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Officials in the ministry have been working with the physician community and the hospital in Fort St. John for some time now to recruit new physicians. Initiatives to date have resulted in some leads. I regret to say that I think the needed number of additional general practitioners has not yet been attracted to the community. We will be continuing to work with the community and with the BCMA to make sure that we can attract physicians to that community.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Richmond East on a supplemental.

L. Reid: When the question was posed to this minister on March 28, he was working on it, and he promised to come back to the table with a strategy. The fact that this minister continues to work on it does not warm the hearts of patients in Fort St. John.

Deputy Speaker: The member has a question?

L. Reid: Stand up, hon. minister, and provide the patients in Fort St. John with a strategy.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm sure the patients in Fort St. John will be warmed by this member's feigned outrage. The reality is that this government has been dealing with the question of physician supply and distribution, in cooperation with the BCMA, for the last year. That is why we put in place a supply measure that says that if you're a new physician practising in this province -- and over 100 additional physicians have located in this province in the last year -- and you want to practise in an over-serviced area, you only get paid 50 percent of normal fees.

If you want to practise in an area where you're needed, we'll pay you 100 percent. If it's a remote area such as Fort St. John, we'll provide 115 percent. That's the sort of initiative that's needed, hon. member, not this feigned outrage.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, members. Order!

[ Page 14539 ]

NEW DIRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY HEALTH CARE

C. Tanner: In keeping with your pronouncement at the beginning of the question period, hon. Speaker, I've been asked to ask a question. [Applause.] Since it has been so well received before I have even given it, I'm sure everybody's going to pay a lot of attention to it.

My question is to the Minister of Health. On May 17 the Capital Regional District health department issued a report which finds serious flaws with the NDP's New Directions strategy. The report states: "Funding has not followed the health reform theme of shifting emphasis from treatment to prevention." An example the report notes is that the waiting time for HIV testing has increased from 7 to 39 days since 1993.

Deputy Speaker: The question.

C. Tanner: Can the minister explain -- here comes the question -- how these decreases in patient service adhere to the NDP health reform plan?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I must say that I'm quite surprised by the member's statement. Had he reviewed funding for the Capital Regional District, he would know that funding to the Capital Regional District has gone up every year under this administration. He would know that last year, over $5 million in funds were allocated for new community-based services from the Closer to Home fund for the Capital Regional District. He would know that the decisions on how those funds should be spent were made by the new Capital Health Board, and that they are continuing the work of enhancing services for folks in Victoria.

The folks on the Capital Health Board ought to know, though, that far from increasing health spending by a quarter of a billion dollars, as we are doing this year, their services are threatened by the federal Liberal budget, which will reduce funding for health in post-secondary education by $800 million.

Deputy Speaker: Supplemental for Saanich North.

C. Tanner: Thank you. I think the Minister of Health should take note of what the Speaker said at the beginning of this question period, when he asked members from the government's side to give pertinent answers. Please, Mr. Speaker, you might also ask them not to be repetitious. We're getting awfully tired of those sorts of answers.

Deputy Speaker: Or engaging in overly long

preambles, member.

C. Tanner: I'm just helping the Speaker with the work he has to do.

The CRD will have to cut preventive services in 1995 in order to meet budget shortfalls. According to the report's authors, this reduction of preventive program funding causes deterioration to patient services and does not -- repeat, not -- support least-cost community health care. Will the minister admit that something is seriously wrong with this new direction strategy when community health departments report that patients are the ones who are suffering from NDP health reforms?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Like other health care providers, the Capital Regional District will have to take the funding increase that has been provided this year and deliver services effectively and efficiently. They can do that. If they wish to scare the citizens of Victoria by admitting that they can't do that, then I suggest they should turn the responsibility over promptly to someone who can -- like the new Capital Health Board.

Finally, the member might want to share with his constituents the fact that we have rectified a historical injustice that has seen residents of the capital region fund health services, 30 percent of the budget for Capital Regional District health budgets, for years and years. This spring, the members from the Victoria area and I announced that we are rectifying that historical injustice by taking the load off local taxpayers, and that the province will assume 100 percent funding for health services delivered in the capital region.

B.C. HYDRO CHAIR'S TRAVEL EXPENSES

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro. Last Friday, in response to an FOI request, the chair of B.C. Hydro hastily released a

summary of his expenses. He failed to include supporting documents with them. Over the last 17 months, John Laxton has racked up $78,000 in travel expenses. The minister has had a week to review that material. Is he satisfied that those claims are legitimate and acceptable under government standards?

Hon. G. Clark: Yes. Actually I just happen, coincidentally, to have the information here before me, hastily provided to me, no doubt, by B.C. Hydro. I do think that.... I appreciate that in the House, members of the opposition want to use material selectively. But let me just fill in the rest of the information, which the member was provided by B.C. Hydro.

Mr. Laxton has worked 260 days as chair since January 1994. He's entitled, by the order-in-council, to both a $4,000 honorarium and $500 per day, which would work out to $137,500. Mr. Laxton has not billed nor received one penny from B.C. Hydro during that period, because he doesn't want to allow the opposition to engage in scurrilous attacks on this question. He's worked 260 days for free on behalf of the people of British Columbia. I think it is a significant contribution made by an individual, which I believe we should not malign, Mr. Speaker. In addition to that, Mr.

Laxton has been travelling -- although not charging for services -- on behalf of B.C. Hydro International, and of any bills associated with B.C. Hydro International, $61,000 are capitalized and included in the actual capital costs of any successful deals that might be struck with respect to that.

[2:30]

Deputy Speaker: The Third Party leader has a supplemental?

[ Page 14540 ]

J. Weisgerber: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Taxpayers, I believe, will be shocked to learn that of the $77,523 in travel expenses, among them are first-class tickets to every corner of the globe, hundreds of dollars in billings for in-room movies and many bar services, and posh hotel rooms costing as much as $2,300. Thousands of dollars, thousands of dollars have been billed....

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, members, order. Question, please, member.

J. Weisgerber: Obviously, members opposite think thousands are not worthy of mention. These have been billed without supporting documents, without supporting invoices, without any indication other than a cover sheet from American Express.

Deputy Speaker: Member, the question, please.

J. Weisgerber: Indeed, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister now initiate an internal audit to examine the expenses of the chair of B.C. Hydro, which appear to be extraordinary, to say the least?

Hon. G. Clark: I know that the FOI legislation has given a wealth of material for the member opposite to raise, but I want to remind members and the people of B.C. that when that member was Minister of Energy and responsible for B.C. Hydro, there was a full-time, paid chairperson for B.C. Hydro at some $200,000. B.C. Hydro International Ltd. was engaged in precisely the same kind of travel and expenses internationally to pursue jobs and investment here in British Columbia. These travel arrangements by Mr.

Laxton -- at his own expense with respect to his time, which is very valuable -- on behalf of the people of British Columbia are securing significant work and opportunities internationally, and jobs and revenue here in British Columbia. I think it's unfortunate that the member opposite would malign Mr. Laxton's reputation and attempt to raise questions about his expenses, when his own salary.... He is working for free and is saving taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars on his own appointment, and he's generating revenue for British Columbia with these international agreements.

RESIGNATION OF CRANBROOK HOSPITAL BOARD CHAIR

L. Stephens: On April 25, a 17-year veteran and chair of the Cranbrook Regional Hospital board, Mr. Gene McDonald, resigned from his position. Mr. McDonald criticized the NDP government for giving major decision-making powers to regional health boards before their voting procedures or their community and regional health plans had been developed. Will the Minister of Health tell this House how many more community leaders will leave the system in frustration before the minister takes seriously the many concerns that people around this province have about the state of health care in this province?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Regional health boards have now been established in all 20 regions of British Columbia...

Interjection.

Hon. P. Ramsey: All 20 regions.

...including the East Kootenays. Far from having a major governance authority at this time, they are in the process of preparing health plans and management structures which need to be approved before operational authority is transferred to them. The major decision-making they have made to date has been over allocation of Closer to Home funds. Since some 320 projects through that $42 million fund have now been allocated -- $42 million of new community-based services have been put in place around the province -- I would say the process is working pretty well right now.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Langley on a supplemental.

L. Stephens: The regional transition teams that are established are without a clear role of the regional health board being clearly defined, and that is causing most of the difficulties that members of these councils are concerned about. This Cranbrook hospital board chair also expressed his frustration at the NDP government, which "forces collective agreements upon hospitals but does not provide the funds to pay for the increase in costs."

Deputy Speaker: Your question.

L. Stephens: Will the minister commit to listen to the people of British Columbia and put patients first in health care, in funding hospitals and services, not in fat-cat union contracts?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The way to put patient care first in British Columbia, hon. member, is to take the welter of conflicting boards and agencies that now deliver care, streamline them, get the administrative efficiencies that regional boards and community health councils can provide, and put that saving into patient care. That is precisely what we are doing. I would ask the hon. member if she and her party are prepared to stand up and tell the 20 regional health boards of the province which 15 of them the Liberal government is prepared to fire and which five they are going to preserve as pilot projects. I would ask you to stand up and say that....

Deputy Speaker: The bell terminates question period. The minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture.

UNAUTHORIZED USE OF GOVERNMENT TELEPHONES

Hon. B. Barlee: I think it's rather appropriate -- we're talking about thousands of dollars -- that I reply to a question I took on notice last week from the Leader of the Third Party, the Reform Party of British Columbia. I should quote, perhaps, what he said. I think this is quite important. He was "appalled to learn that the members of the B.C. Pavilion Corporation had, in fact, made calls to Coast-to-Coast Dating Services...." He went on to say that this practice was an abuse of taxpayers' money.

Well, essentially, I do agree with that statement from the member for Peace River South. I think it would be an abuse of taxpayers' money if it had been a significant amount. I

shud-

[ Page 14541 ]

dered for a moment, because I thought he really was on to something. B.C. Pavco governs about five agencies right across the province; they have about seven million clients. This was a four-year study. So I thought, heavens, we will probably have thousands and thousands of phone calls that maybe have slipped through the line. And I thought for a fleeting moment we had a new Sam Spade or maybe another Sherlock Holmes or someone in sight, but after some due diligence, and after studying the situation very closely, I found we had an Inspector Clouseau.

We run quite a tight ship, and with seven million people I thought, heavens, there must be a lot of calls. I have the list of calls in front of me, and of those seven million people, in four years -- 48 months -- we had ten calls per agency. That's one call every two years...

An Hon. Member: Oh, what a shame.

Hon. B. Barlee: ...which I think is really almost shameful. I don't know how we could track that. Those calls came to a total of $51.72 over four years, which is barely a dollar a month -- I know that's extravagant, I quite admit.

We looked at it very, very closely, and we looked at a couple of other things closely, as well. We found that about $2,000 worth of taxpayers' money had been spent researching that. It took $40 per month to find the $50. We could have actually put in a system that would have required $10,000 plus PST and GST. It would have required $1,000 a month, but I think I'd rather lose a dollar a month than $1,000 a month. Our system is really quite safe, so I would suggest, hon. Speaker, that there was definitely an abuse of taxpayers' money, but it was not on this side of the House.

Orders of the Day

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

Section A to debate the estimates of the Ministry of Health. In

Section B, in the House, I call the estimates of the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs.

The House in Committee of Supply B; H. Giesbrecht in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

(continued)

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

A. Warnke: Basically, there are still a number of questions that a number of members want to raise. What I would like to pursue in the next little while are a couple of concerns that have come up, and they essentially revolve around a document that has been circulating for a number of days. Actually, there are two documents: one has been circulating for a few weeks now, and another one for a few days.

This is in regard to a comment, first of all, that was made about a report. The British Columbia government has made it very clear that it would not surrender more than 5 percent of the province's land mass to aboriginals in land claim settlements. Considering the impact that this potentially has on how the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs addresses this in the next year and, especially, maybe even as soon as in the next few weeks.... I've received quite a few reactions and responses to that statement, which I would like to pursue with the minister briefly. I'm not going to go all afternoon on it.

The one concern with regard to the British Columbia government saying that it would not surrender more than 5 percent of the province's land mass has led to one kind of reaction: that aboriginal leaders were led to believe.... I suppose that they had higher expectations and were led to believe that the terms of the quantity and the quality of the land claims settlement would be much greater than what was supposedly stated as the government's position.

The one argument that I've heard.... I've heard the arguments from one extreme to the other, one suggesting that if the provincial government has given away 12 percent of the land dedicated to parks, why should an equivalent not be given to aboriginals? The other view is that 5 percent is too high. The argument that I've heard quite frequently for the past week is that 5 percent is too high because, first of all, the population of aboriginals in British Columbia is 3 percent, and half of that -- or 1.5 percent of the population of aboriginals -- are on-reserve. Therefore why 5 percent?

[2:45]

Then it invites.... I suppose I will fill the minister in on some of the other reactions. What form does this 5 percent take? It is still unclear. Is the government going to give 5 percent of the land in British Columbia that is sovereign? At least I was able to respond to that a little bit, because I know that in our last discussions, I did pose the question of whether any sort of land settlement would mean that the land owned and managed by aboriginals would be subordinate to provincial and federal jurisdiction -- that there would really not be anything equivalent to a provincial jurisdiction and what not.

The minister reassured this House that at least the idea of aboriginal territory being sovereign is just not on. And, in fact, the documents make it pretty clear that any notion of sovereign territory to aboriginals is simply not on.

On the other hand, I guess the key word that triggered this was the term "surrender." It's not the aboriginals now surrendering land; in the context that it was put in, it was the government surrendering 5 percent to the aboriginals. If they are surrendering that, then I guess many members of the public took that as meaning that this is setting up some sort of a sovereign state. Despite the fact that we've actually explored this in earlier debate, the fact is that it illustrates once again the confusion that appears to be out there.

Part of it maybe even stems from the so-called 5 percent threshold. Where did this number, 5 percent, come from? Why was 5 percent chosen? From the public's point of view, there are some other disturbing concerns about what has been issued in the press. Those are just some opening remarks on this subject, and I would like the minister to clarify the numerical value of 5 percent. Where does this pop up from? Is this even accurate? Is there any percent out there? If it is 5 percent, maybe the minister could address the two wide variations of concern here, but still address the question of terms such as "sovereign" and "surrender" -- the meaning and implications of using those terms.

Hon. J. Cashore: I'd like to acknowledge that the hon. member has moved up to the front bench. He's a little more difficult to see with my fading eyes, but I'm glad to see him

[ Page 14542 ]

there. I'd also like to take this opportunity to welcome the new member for Abbotsford to the House, who occupies the august chair that this member formerly occupied.

Before I proceed with my answer, I wonder if I could get clarification on the use of the word "surrender." I am not clear on what document or reference the hon. member is referring to.

A. Warnke: I believe that particular concern was expressed in the first document of April 19, 1995. The minister is raising an interesting point, because actually as I went through it, I did not see the term "surrender" appear. But where I did hear it and have seen it is in reports in response to the April document, which suggests that....

Perhaps I can quote here from the Vancouver Sun, and I believe this has been quoted not only once but twice in different reports. I'll try to find it specifically here. "This paper on treaties follows a similar report leaked last week that said the British Columbia government would surrender no more than 5 percent of the province's land mass to natives." That refers specifically to the April document.

Hon. J. Cashore: In the hon. member's question he made reference to the term "surrender" as though it was a term that existed in a provincial document. Or at least it gave me that impression, in the way in which he stated it. I'm not clear that that is the case. So I would like to read for the record the document that is the provincial document, which is what I think we should deal with. I don't intend to defend or criticize the phrases and terms used by the media in their reinterpretation of what is contained in a document.

With regard to B.C.'s approach to treaty settlements on the issue of land -- as I've said before -- as in other treaties, the province believes that most treaty agreements will include an area of land that will be owned and managed by the first nation. This area of treaty settlement land will be the subject of negotiation and will vary, depending on the interests and needs of individual first nations and non-aboriginal communities, as well as on local circumstances. It is the province's objective to ensure that existing Indian reserves are incorporated within treaty settlement lands.

Overall, the total land held by first nations after treaty settlements are completed in British Columbia will be less than 5 percent of the province's land base.

Now, with regard to this question, if we go back to the words used by the hon. member when he was phrasing the initial part of the question, he referred to -- and he used the same phraseology, I think, that existed in the news report -- the province surrendering or giving up 5 percent of the land. I would say that in that phrase is a need for caution, because I'm sure if the hon. member thinks about it, he will find an inaccuracy in that statement itself. The statement implies something which is clearly incorrect, because currently more than 1 percent of the land base is held in trust by the federal government on behalf of first nations. We have included that number within the 5 percent.

I would like to point out to the hon. member that I have just attended a meeting of the Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee. At that committee meeting this morning I heard a lot of positive comment about the province having put that figure out there, based generally on the proportional recognition of it being less than 5 percent, which is an approximation of the aboriginal population of the province. At that table I heard different views about whether it's too much or too little. But what everybody there was agreed on was that it was really valuable to have that target figure out there, for two reasons.

It puts focus onto the question, because we did have reports that were quite outrageous -- that 111 percent of the land of the province is under claim, therefore somebody is going to give it all away, which was never said by anybody and which has never even been a glimmer of a gleam of anybody's idea of what was going to happen. Being able to put that out there means that we have parameters. Now we know that on the one hand, first nations are putting out their opening positions based on their understanding of traditional territory.

We, as a province, have been able to put out that target figure in a draft document, because we want to hear what the people of the Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee, the regional advisory committee, the members of this House and other members of the general public have to say about that.

As the hon. member has pointed out, we are now receiving some very valuable comment from the public that will inform the eventual target that will be the basis of the provincial mandates on this issue. So we have performed a very valuable public service in being able to get the specificity into that. It's subject to what we hear from the general public, but I want the hon. member to know that with what I have heard so far it's very positive, by and large. I think that is reassuring. If some concern is being expressed by first nations, I understand that.

But I think that first nations would respect the fact that we, as a province, have a right and a responsibility to put out our parameters, just as they have theirs. That's part of how negotiations work. So the public dialogue is very, very valuable, and I am receiving affirming comments about that as I go around to these various advisory processes.

The hon. member raised the point about comparing this to the 12 percent protected areas in parks. It's not even apples and oranges in a comparison like that; it's more like apples and elephants. There is no comparison whatsoever. When we are talking about protected areas in parks, it is something that is to be a benefit to all British Columbians and to all future generations, regardless of whether they are first nations or not.

We recognize that in some parks we are working on joint management processes that would honour such things as traditional aboriginal food gathering and ceremonial gathering activities within those parks. So there is a very real compatibility within that process, and the idea that 12 percent of the province's representative ecosystems would be there for people of all backgrounds to enjoy is certainly important. And it's valuable to have representations that were there at the time of contact when what we're dealing with now is about what has happened since the time of contact.

The question also included the question: what form does it take? I believe what I just read into the record has clarified that point, and we've clarified that point in this debate on three or four previous occasions. The form is that it would be equivalent to fee simple land. It would be land that first nations could use for collateral in establishing businesses or in entering into economic partnerships. It would certainly be a departure from the paternalism of their land being held in trust by the federal government. That simply has to go. The fact that we have been able to get some specificity into a target figure has been very helpful.

[ Page 14543 ]

A. Warnke: I appreciate the minister's remarks. When terms such as "surrender" are being used and more or less conveying an impression to the public, it's always really necessary to qualify whether it is appropriate to use the term "surrender" or something like that. Since it has been out in the media forum, I believe some sort of clarification is essential. The minister has provided that, which I appreciate.

I also appreciate the minister's response with regard to the 5 percent choice, insofar as the minister seemed to be very explicit about linking that to the population size of the aboriginal community in British Columbia. We had an earlier discussion, and we canvassed this a bit. It's not necessary to repeat it, but I believe I noted -- and I think the minister also responded positively -- that there is a wide variety of

interpretation as to what constitutes the population of the aboriginal community in British Columbia.

My own reflection, when one begins to talk about a 74,000 or 150,000 population, is that this is where there is a great variation in those percentages. This is the first time I've actually heard that the percentage chosen is relative to the population size in the province, percentage-wise. That's how I'm interpreting the minister's remarks, and I appreciate that. If I'm still off the mark, I would appreciate any further clarification, but that's how I understand it, and I appreciate those remarks.

In line with these concerns related to the 5 percent maximum threshold, the following problem was also expressed to me. Is that more or less final now, or is that just a negotiating position? Somewhere along the line, might we actually see some changes of the use of that 5 percent maximum threshold? It has been expressed to me by using the following example, and I think it really helps us here in flushing out this problem.

[3:00]

This is with regard to the Nisga'a. In the context of any ceding of land to the Nisga'a in settlement, in whatever form, is it possible that an escalation clause could be a part of the settlement in the Nisga'a? This is a very critical question for some people, because if there is an escalation clause saying we have a settlement, but it's a settlement only for the time being, then what we may want is to explore another change of circumstances.

I know we've explored this before, and the minister is quite right. One thing you don't want is an ironclad agreement that's carved in stone and cannot be altered. Yet, at some time in the future, one might want to revisit some aspect that might be changed, and so on. Both of us have used the example of the Musqueam case on Southwest Marine Drive in Vancouver as a good example of why you may want to revisit a change of some sort.

There is another problem here. Using the Nisga'a as an example, this is something that could be carved in stone, in some cases, because somehow it has to be incorporated into the constitution of Canada. Indeed, all treaties that are eventually finalized throughout British Columbia have to be in some form that meets the requirements of the constitution of Canada. Hence, what could occur....

There is a fear in the case of the Nisga'a, I suppose, that you are incorporating an escalation clause that not only allows you to revisit some fine tuning from time to time but could reopen the whole negotiations again. Where more negotiations can follow, then we have a very difficult situation indeed. We do not have an agreement. We have the appearance of an agreement, but we don't have an agreement.

The minister doesn't have to respond if he doesn't want to, but a cynic may even go so far as to say that if it were to occur, there may be the appearance of an agreement with the Nisga'a before the end of June -- or at any time, I suppose -- but after an election, all of a sudden we may end up revisiting the whole Nisga'a case all over again. Rather than having something with some degree of finality that establishes some sort of certainty and confidence, we've got something that's on very rapidly shifting ground. This is a concern that I want to express.

A number of people have said: "What does that 5 percent mean in the long term if there is an escalation clause?" I suppose it's really relevant to ask questions with regard to the Nisga'a, as an example. Is there such thing as an escalation clause that may appear in which we could revisit the whole negotiations all over again? Is this likely to occur in a number of treaties? Is there some sort of finality with this 5 percent threshold?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I wanted to make sure that I introduced the students just arriving in the gallery today. We have dozens and dozens of my constituents: students from Thunderbird Elementary School, in my riding of Vancouver-Hastings, in grades 5 and 6. They are accompanied by their teacher Ms. Duncan. I expect that they will very much enjoy the debate today in the Legislature. Many of the students are first nations students, and it will be particularly relevant to them. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. J. Cashore: I too would like to welcome those students and say that they have a very fine cabinet minister here in their MLA.

Unless the hon. member can identify some kind of a document that uses the term "escalator clause," the fact is that there is no escalator clause.

A. Warnke: No, so far as I see it.... Of course, the Nisga'a agreement is not published, simply because we're nowhere near there. What I'm expressing is really the concern that when we're toying around with the idea of establishing a treaty, and when we start using terms such as the 5 percent threshold and what not, is there the prospect of an escalation clause? That's essentially the concern that I'm raising. If it is final....

Maybe one supplementary question to that is: when the minister says that there is no escalation clause, is that because there is no escalation clause in any of the treaties, which we've not finalized yet? Really, the supplementary to that is: nonetheless, is there the prospect of an escalation clause? If the minister says no, I'm willing to accept that. Believe me, that goes a long way to alleviating a lot of fears in British Columbia.

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is no, there's no prospect of the province supporting an escalator clause. I'm glad to be able to put that on the record.

[ Page 14544 ]

While I have the floor, I'd like to take a moment to respond to a couple of questions that were taken on May 17 from members of the Liberal opposition. Perhaps I should ask the Aboriginal Affairs critic of the Liberal opposition if it's okay with him if I respond to these questions now, or if he would prefer to send a note so that they are in the House when I respond to them.

Interjection.

Hon. J. Cashore: No, these were questions that were asked during estimates.

Interjection.

Hon. J. Cashore: I will proceed.

The first is a question from the member for Saanich North and the Islands regarding service agreements between municipalities and first nations. The member's understanding of the number of service agreements was not correct. To date, five first nations with taxing authority have service agreements with municipalities providing services to their on-reserve, non-native lessees. To date, seven first nations are in service agreement negotiations with municipalities providing service to their lessees. This is a total of 12, not 40 as cited by the member in his question.

The second response is to the member for Delta South, whose question on May 17 was with regard to school taxes on property on reserve lands. The provincial Indian Self Government Enabling Act of 1990 was enacted after the federal Indian Act was amended in 1988, granting first nations a jurisdiction to tax lessees on designated reserve lands. The federal amendment was made with little consultation with the province. By enacting the legislation, B.C. wanted to ensure that on-reserve lessees would not be paying both first-nations and provincial taxation.

B.C. knew that provincial revenues would be forgone, but this step was necessary to avoid double taxation for on-reserve lessees. In 1994 the amount of forgone revenue is estimated at between $6 million and $7 million.

A. Warnke: I will alert both members about the statements given by the minister. I believe the member for Delta South may actually have one other question as well, but I thank the minister for those responses.

I also want to pursue a second document that I made reference to, entitled "B.C.'s Approach to Treaty Settlements," put out by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs on May 12, 1995. Once again, this has got some celebrated press, I suppose -- newspapers and others have picked it up. In it, again, there were some concerns being expressed. But essentially, I want to pursue with the minister....

Perhaps this is a way of clarifying the government's position -- not that I'm going to work for the government, it's up to the minister to do that -- and the notion of developing treaties that really focus on future needs rather than past injustices. I've actually got before me not only the May 12 document but also the previous April document that I referred to.

I must admit that my antenna also picked up on this notion that if treaties were to focus on future needs rather than on past injustices, then that really takes us right back to almost the very beginning of the debate this year, beginning with the point I have raised about discussing the nature and implications of Delgamuukw and getting that clarified for the future.

The reason is that a number of people, once again.... I was really surprised in the last 24 hours. If I recall, the original report talking about this particular problem, expressed in the Vancouver Sun, stimulated a sort of response questioning what this is all about. I guess there is a perception out there: "What about it? Isn't that really getting us away from something in terms of a land claims settlement? After all, if the land claims settlement is based on future needs, how are we to address that?" People have some obvious concerns, and I guess this was expressed in the Vancouver Sun as well.

I know that the minister and most of us do not like to read the newspapers. I always say that if you don't like what you see in the newspapers, don't read them, but you have to pay some attention to them, because they reflect a certain opinion that's out among the public.

Upon reflection -- I started thinking about this as well -- there are a number of questions associated with this reference to future needs. It opens up the prospect for a whole host of issues to be dealt with, now and in the future, without really settling anything in the present. Unfortunately, perhaps future generations will have to deal with something that may be constitutionally entrenched. First, there are a number of concerns.

I'll just give out some bullets of what some members of the public have said to me: "Who else is entitled to be addressed according to future needs?"; "Does this mean, then, that non-aboriginals are left out?"; and "This will be seen as unfair, if that's the case."

I would really like to explore this as well and get it clarified, because maybe the newspapers are entirely wrong. Maybe we're headed in an entirely.... There's a perception that's leading us in an entirely misleading direction that the ministry does not intend to head us down. But just in case there is some accuracy to the reference to developing treaties along the lines of future needs rather than past injustices, it does open up all these court cases again, stemming from Delgamuukw and actually going back to Calder, but we need not explore that any further.

[3:15]

With Delgamuukw and other key court cases, the courts have advised us what is needed. What is needed is some sort of remedy for an aboriginal interest that has been lost in the past, a loss of aboriginal, precolonial traditional activities. In that kind of context, the courts have sort of guided us that what is needed is some sort of fair compensation for what has existed in the past, and to somehow rectify that.

The courts have never said -- and this is my view of the courts, and I actually have been reading through the cases -- go beyond that and try to anticipate something in terms of doing something in the future to rectify injustices of the past. If anything, the courts have suggested that the aboriginal rights activities have taken place on the land and that should be addressed, that aboriginal rights inherent in their distinct cultures should be addressed and that this is part of the compensation package.

With that sort of sentiment attached to it, I would like the minister to put on the record the meaning behind the reference, if in fact it is valid, to future needs rather than past injustices as the basis for negotiating treaties.

Hon. J. Cashore: First of all, when we review the 11 points that this hon. member read into the record at the opening of estimates.... It was an affirmation of the B.C. provincial government's position in entering into the Treaty Commission process as it ensued from the task force report,

[ Page 14545 ]

which was in

part commissioned by the former administration's Minister of Native Affairs. Therefore I think we have validation in this House on the part of existing members. The current Aboriginal Affairs critic has espoused B.C.'s action in entering into the Treaty Commission process, pursuant to the recommendations in the report that the present leader of the Reform Party had a major role in enabling, when they commissioned the task force to come up with the terms of reference that led to the setting up of the Treaty Commission.

So I think we should make it very, very clear for the record that the three major parties in this House -- the government and the two opposition parties -- have, I would say, both implicitly and explicitly supported the position that this present government is taking in entering into that process.

When you enter into that process, there are certain approaches which I think are fundamental to that. One is that you recognize that the underlying position is a future-oriented negotiation which seeks, through a relationship based on recognition and respect, to come up with honourable treaties. The recognition here is that that's a better way to resolve existing problems than going through the courts. The hon. member is referring to court decisions, but I would remind him that the courts make judgments -- usually inadequate judgments. They usually don't solve our problems for us.

They may give a few indicators, but they usually don't solve our problems for us. But those decisions are based on their understanding of the law and their understanding of the law in its historical context. Therefore the courts are not prospective in the sense of giving us a blueprint, a map or a guideline for the future; they give us a decision based on a set of circumstances at a point in time. It remains the responsibility of those of us who do our work in this chamber to be creating the kind of future that serves future points in time.

That is why we believe it's very consistent with our role and our responsibility to be involved in this treaty-making process.

Let's remember, too, that treaty-making, contract-making and negotiating agreements are carried out by government with a wide range of those who make up our province. There is a great deal of focus, understandably, on the first nations at this time because of the unfinished business that is involved here.

When we're talking about future needs, it's kind of an interesting question. There's the question: do we base what we do on future needs? I think that one sort of silent part of that question is: if you do that, you might really be giving away the farm. On the other hand, do you base it on past injustices? I think that there is an attempt to create some kind of trap in that question. The best way to respond to it is to say that I'll just take those two questions and answer them both, and I'll assume there's no trap there.

I'd like to hear the hon. member also say what his position is on that, because it would be interesting to find out to what extent his declaration on the opening day of estimates is consistent with the principles that are implicit and explicit in entering into the Treaty Commission process, which he espouses. I would point out that we do not base modern treaties on past injustices. It is important that we understand our history and that we do not repeat the mistakes of history. That's important; that's something that every member of this House would agree with.

But we do not base the decision on past injustices; we do not base them on guilt or shame. That is not useful. That is not a creative kind of emotional state to be in when making these kinds of decisions that affect the future.

Just to give you another example, we understand that some first nations have paid to have companies such as Price Waterhouse do reviews of the amount of area taken out of their version of a traditional territory -- the amount of resources taken out -- and then they've reported on the value of that. We don't base treaty negotiations on their assessment of that value, and we don't base treaty negotiations on those arguments that say we should add up all of the money that's gone into education and health services, etc., since the time of the Indian Act and base it on that.

We don't base it on either one of those factors. We base it on entering into an honourable and respectful relationship in which we seek to achieve honourable and lasting treaties that serve the purpose of the future.

Those treaties, first of all, should be workable, affordable and fair. Fairness means that we affirm the basic position of British Columbians: that they want to be fair, that they want to see this issue settled. I don't think they want to see it settled in a way that perpetuates the cycle of poverty, poor health and high infant mortality rates that we see in the aboriginal community. I don't think the average British Columbian wants to see that happen.

I think the average British Columbian wants to see treaties that enable a process that will kick-start a new approach to economic development, which bodes well for the economic future of the first nations and also for the economic future of all other British Columbians because of a more harmonious relationship. This is a relationship in which we can see more enterprises such as the Babine forest company, which is a native-owned company that employs over 400 persons, most of them non-aboriginal, and which was enabled to become successful because of a partnership with very good business partners from the non-aboriginal community.

That's the type of thing we want to see resulting from the kinds of possibilities that will be enabled by treaties. Indeed, that's one of the real values of having groups such as the regional advisory committees and the Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee. Because we have people sitting right there in that advisory process -- people like Marlie Beets of COFI and other people who know how those businesses operate and can sit down and work with first nations in seeking to evolve those kinds of partnerships. That is happening in the pre-treaty era, and we think that can happen to an even greater extent in the post-treaty era.

When questions come up that say, "Really, we suggest that treaties should be absolutely limited to whatever is defined in the courts" -- as is stated by certain interests -- we have to ask: is that going to produce the kind of benefit for non-aboriginals, such as certainty, such as economic opportunity, that we really want to see there at the end of the day when the treaties are completed?

Therefore, if the answer is yes, we do want to see it create that kind of benefit for non-aboriginal people and aboriginal people as well, then in the context of negotiations, we sit down and talk about what can work for everybody's needs for the future. A negotiation that talks only about what can work in terms of the needs of only one of those parties isn't going to be a successful negotiation. It has to relate to the needs of all.

When we talk about future needs, the answer is yes, we base treaties on future needs, and we do so proudly. But it's the future needs of all British Columbians, recognizing the special nature of first nations as has been recognized in the courts and in the constitution of Canada.

[ Page 14546 ]

A. Warnke: One of the ironies is that a lot of what the minister has said is still consistent with the comments I made on the opening day. Especially when we get into the broad, general aspirations of trying to develop a treaty that does establish some certainty, and that treaties are done in terms of honour, recognition and respect, this is still consistent with my opening position.

But I think there is a bit of a problem when it is stated that, well, the courts have actually been vague on this. That's one view of court decisions. The fact is that the court decisions.... Gosh, sometimes when you reread them you are not so bamboozled after all about the language.

Delgamuukw is an example. It's a 394-page document. It's not a light document that says in just a few pages, well, you know, it's really all up in the air. It's rather specific. There is a decision at the end of it. The justices appropriately went to great lengths to explain their position, and 394 pages in a document is no light matter.

Indeed, Delgamuukw isn't the only one. You can go back to Sparrow, and it's pretty specific. It's pretty specific in terms of what Sparrow won in that particular case and as to what the plaintiff did not get. It's pretty explicit as to what was denied, where the plaintiff lost. There's even an impression in Delgamuukw that somehow, well, this is a draw or something like that.

Interjection.

A. Warnke: No, really -- take it in its core. There is a decision that comes out of Delgamuukw, and other cases as well....

[3:30]

In another perspective, just taking a prima facie look at the decisions, the courts have actually been pretty explicit that this is the law -- this is where we do see perhaps further clarification or whatever, and this is perhaps desirable in terms of exploring through negotiations, but nonetheless this is the law. It's in this kind of context that I think people are really concerned.

If we're interested in developing a viable aboriginal community in the future, once the territory has been established by various first nations throughout British Columbia -- and it's very clear what the boundaries are, how they are to be organized and managed, and what ownership is and all the rest of it -- is it not possible then to have other kinds of negotiations that really deal with some of the concerns which have been phrased, let's say, in the context of social policy and socioeconomic concerns? Is this not better outside the parameters of a treaty?

After all, the treaty does take on some status of a constitutionalized nature. That's the concern I've had expressed to me, and I must admit that so far I've found that pretty darn convincing.

So I would like to hear a counterargument. I'm open; I've got an open mind on this discussion. I certainly do not question the direction the minister is headed in, in terms of what we have to do to get aboriginal communities on some sound socioeconomic footing in the future. I guess it's still a concern by what means, and should that means be expressed in something that takes on a constitutionalized form -- which, after all, is pretty close to having something carved in stone. In order to change that, this means the involvement of both the federal and provincial governments.

This involves the first nations, and it is a very cumbersome process to undo something that the courts had intended for us to explore but didn't really encourage us. By way of an example.... Maybe the minister would like to respond to that as well.

From some of the court decisions, it's been very clear that after conservation and ecological concerns have been met -- let's say of the fishing industry -- then aboriginal rights, especially with regard to food, social and ceremonial uses, have to be respected foremost and commercial and sports fishing afterwards.

If the reference to future needs is the primary focus of these negotiations rather than compensation, I suppose what some people are concerned about is whether it is possible that commercial activity would become part of the future needs, and all of a sudden you're incorporating in a constitutional and legal context some activity the court didn't have any intention for us to address, something that is really.... I think it's very fair to say that some people have a concern that it will give an advantage to one particular group in society at the expense of another group.

I understand where the minister is coming from and where he's going, and it's commendable and all the rest of it. But there is that other concern among Canadians: are we really doing something when we're institutionalizing and putting into some sort of quasi-constitutional context something where one group in society has some sort of an advantage over another? We have explored some of these ideas before, and I think that both the minister and I have heard the arguments from the first nations.

While we haven't experienced as aboriginals, we haven't experienced any advantages.... They have experienced disadvantages up to now, and everybody recognizes that. On the other hand, there is a concern that we are going to institutionalize something that, at the heart of it, may still provide an advantage to one group of Canadians over another which the courts did not intend us to do and which would be better addressed outside the treaty context.

It may be for awhile or it may be for some sort of perpetuity, however that's defined, that we want to give a perceived disadvantaged group of the past some advantages in society. Indeed, that's the nature of affirmative action programs incorporated in the United States. And in this country and in other democratic countries, that's the purpose. But those could be met outside the parameters of the treaty process. It's that which I really want to explore with the minister.

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

Leave granted.

G. Wilson: In the gallery this afternoon we have three people I consider good friends, and who are constituents from Powell River: Mr. George Fulcher, his wife, Rose Fulcher, and Richard McDonald. The three are attending the B.C. Association for Community Living conference. They are self-advocates who have really taken a leadership role in the province in moving forward self-advocacy for those people who formerly were institutionalized and now have been moved back into the communities and lead productive lives.

I would also point out that in this spring's edition of Guardianship News, Richard McDonald has the lead

article entitled "Banishing the Ghost of Incapability." It's an

out-

[ Page 14547 ]

standing

article to let all British Columbians know what can happen when self-advocates stand up and take their lives into their own hands. I wish the House would make them all welcome.

Hon. J. Cashore: I would also like to join in welcoming the individuals whom the hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast has just introduced, and to say that I certainly do agree with the comments he made. It's very inspiring for us to have these people present. I think anything that brings into our jaded atmosphere that which is also the stuff of hope is very ennobling and encouraging.

With regard to the points that the hon. member just made, he referred to the courts as not being vague, and I think that's right. The courts aren't vague; in fact, I think they're very clear. But they're also very inadequate in terms of resolving issues that we need to be resolving in a proactive way among ourselves. The courts recognize that in their decisions, and they state in their decisions that they are not able to provide those

definitions of rights that are undefined at the present time. When the hon. member is referring to what issue is inside the treaty and what is outside the treaty, I really do believe that if he took a careful look at the documents that have recently been released to the regional advisory committee tables he would recognize that that is absolutely right and recognized within those documents of the provincial positions.

It's difficult sometimes to talk about this in the abstract, so let's talk about it in a concrete situation, that being the Nisga'a. As I've read into the record before -- I believe this hon. member was in the House -- with regard to the salmon issue, which I do recognize is a controversial issue, any of the province's support for the federal position regarding commercial entitlement outside the treaty would only be provided if there were effective measures for monitoring and enforcement. So we're talking right there about a commercial activity outside a treaty.

Another activity outside a treaty that we're talking about with the Nisga'a is the forest tenure concept. Negotiations will be required to ensure that provincial policies on fibre and on jobs are protected for British Columbians in general within the context of that, and that would not be an entrenched provision within a treaty. So we're not talking here -- and I don't think it should be implied -- about entrenching everything that is part of that which is the outcome of treaty negotiations. I would hope that that would clarify that point.

I would also point out to the hon. member, when he refers to the courts and what the courts have told us to do or not to do, that this government has come into some considerable criticism for the fact that we have an interim measures policy. Yet we have a recent court decision where a judge of the B.C. Supreme Court lifted an injunction that had been stopping logging for seven years because there was no interim measures policy and no treaty-making policy. I think what we have coming from the courts is an affirmation of provincial policy.

It raises an interesting point. Hon. Chair, I know I'm not in a position to ask questions of the Liberal critic, but he may want to advise the House with regard to how he explains what I say and what many others say is an inconsistent position, when he calls for a moratorium on interim measures. Here we have a judge opening up an area for logging because we do have interim measures, and he's saying that his party takes a position that is opposed to interim measures.

Also, his party, in taking that position, is, I believe, fundamentally inconsistent with the very first point of his platform, which is that they support the Treaty Commission process. It would be interesting to know how the hon. member would explain what I see as a direct contradiction.

Notwithstanding everything I've said, I do want to say that I do appreciate the hon. member affirming and upholding the position this government is taking, and that is the spirit in which I take his position. I believe he's affirming and upholding what this government is doing, because he has said that they support the B.C. Treaty Commission process and that they would continue that process that we've entered into in the unlikely event that they ever have the opportunity to make that decision.

But there is one thing that I do want to say, hon. member. I do believe that the leader of the Liberal Party -- the Leader of the Official Opposition -- has been remarkably silent in coming forward to support this hon. member in what he has said. I find that confusing and concerning. I'm concerned for this hon. member, because I would hate to think that he is taking a leadership role in these issues and not being supported by his leader.

I would hope that between the two of us, the hon. member and I might encourage the Leader of the Official Opposition to come into the chamber and advise the House to what extent he affirms and supports the platform that the hon. member put forward during the opening day of the Aboriginal Affairs estimates.

[3:45]

I think that the public is interested in knowing where the leader of the Liberal opposition stands on these issues. We've heard different things said in different venues, and it sounds like he's developing that ability to bend over backwards in two directions at the same time. I think that those of us who are in positions such as that of the critic know how important it is to have the support of the leader with regard to the policy positions we are taking forward. I know that when I was in opposition, I always had that support; I always knew I could count on it; it was always up front. On behalf of this member, I would expect that there would be nothing less than that.

L. Fox: I'm almost hesitant to enter into this debate. Perhaps I could enlighten the minister that if and when the Leader of the Official Opposition gets to really understand the Reform policies on the native issues, then you'll see him come forward with the Liberal position. Because if you look at much of the policy they've developed over the last couple of years, it's come out of the Reform Party policy book.

But with that said, I want to ask a few questions around this leaked information out of Smithers, which has been the topic of discussion here for a good part of this afternoon. While I don't want to accuse the minister or this government of going through a new process of public announcements, it seems more and more that we have policy that comes forward from supposed leaks or undisclosed sources, rather than the routine press release and the public announcement which we used to see coming out on major policy issues such as this.

Perhaps it's because it seems like it gets more notice in the press if it appears to be something which isn't supposed to be public, rather than if it's the government trying to announce a particular initiative.

[ Page 14548 ]

The first question I have, though, around the 5 percent is: how was that figure or that percentage picked? If you use the geographical base of the province and take 5 percent of that -- divide that by the aboriginal population -- it would appear that it's very close to the Treaty 8 settlements. Was that the formula, or was there some other formula for picking the 5 percent?

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is no, it's not based on a formula such as the hon. member refers to with regard to the Treaty 8 issue.

Before I get into answering his question about the 5 percent, I just want to comment on the issue of leaks. I want to make it very, very clear that this government, this ministry and this minister in no way have had any involvement in arranging leaks. I have said, and I'm completely transparent and honest on this issue....

Interjection.

Hon. J. Cashore: Well, as I am on every issue. I want to make it very clear that on this issue there's no hesitation whatsoever in saying that I appreciate those who have, for whatever reason -- and I think often it was for the wrong reasons -- released this information, because it has really helped. It really has.

But we believe that a commitment to an agreement is a commitment to an agreement -- what I sometimes refer to as the Weisgerber agreement, in the Nisga'a phrase. I have been told that I can't refer to a member in the House, but I believe when you use that as an adjective it is all right. I may hear from the Chair about that. There is an agreement within the Nisga'a's protocol that was signed by the former Minister of Native Affairs, who is currently the Leader of the Third Party, which has a very stringent confidentiality clause in it. We've learned from that how important it is to have openness protocols attendant at the treaties so that it can be as open as it possibly can.

But we do agree that the information that has come out through the documents that were lost by the federal minister and released by the federal Reform Party, and also documents that were referred to as leaked the other day -- which really was quite remarkable because in no way was that a leak.... It was at a public meeting of the Smithers regional advisory committee, and the media were invited. It really escapes me why Stewart Bell has persisted in referring to that as a leak. But anyway, that's not important.

The fact is, hon. member, that in putting out the figure 5 percent.... You know, I suppose I could say: "Well, we spent thousands and thousands of dollars on a study that came up with this figure, and therefore we put it up." The fact is that we didn't. It's an unsophisticated target that is put out there, based, generally speaking, on the aboriginal population of the province.

It has served to focus the kind of comment that I received from the members of the Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee this morning. There was some comment that said it was too much. I would say that more comment said it was actually pretty close to what they thought should be right on. But the fact of putting the figure out there has enabled the public dialogue around that to be heard, which we need to hear because it's a draft document and a draft figure. It is something that allows people to be very specific with regard to how that's viewed.

The other thing is that it deals with the fact that there are these estimates out there of 111 percent of the province, based on what people have filed as their concept for their traditional territory. So you need those parameters, because when people start negotiations they start wide apart and they work together.

In putting that out there, we think it's provided a very real service. We don't think it requires some kind of rocket scientist to do a study to come up with a figure like that. We have no apologies whatsoever for putting that figure out there. I am very pleased with the positive comments that I'm receiving from the general public and that I received this morning at the TNAC meeting about the fact that we have put that figure out there.

I want to make it very clear -- and I meant to make this clear earlier in responding to a similar question from the official opposition critic -- that this figure is an end-of-the-day figure; it's a general figure. We do know that the demographics of this great province are so varied that in some areas it might be a bit higher than that, and in some areas it might be lower than that. We're talking about an averaged-out figure at the end of the day.

The last thing I want to say is that I've answered all of these questions about eight times in the estimates so far.

Interjection.

Hon. J. Cashore: I'm sorry, hon. member. It wasn't always this hon. member that asked the question, but if one were to read the Hansard, one would find that these questions have been abundantly answered.

L. Fox: I appreciate the fact that the minister has had very long estimates, not only because of the length of the debate but because they've been strung out. Other items have come onto the agenda, such as that of the last three days. I believe it would have been a lot more valuable to spend time on the aboriginal estimates rather than debating the resolution that was put forward. However, I want to go on.

The minister alluded to this 5 percent, at the end of the day, as the global figure for the province, but it will be larger in some cases and smaller in others. I'm going to reserve my judgment on whether or not that's a fair number until I see what the package contains at the end of the day. Whether or not this 5 percent is in the valleys or just where this five percent is.... Is it a fair allocation, or is it the most productive forest lands that are being acquired? Those are all questions that I know the minister can't answer today, and I don't expect him to.

The question of 5 percent and whether or not that's something that I as a member can support is going to be held in reserve until we see what the total package is at the end of the day.

Hon. J. Cashore: I appreciate the hon. member letting me comment on that. When the hon. member says that he reserves judgment on this figure, that is exactly what I want to hear. I want to hear the judgments and the considered opinions of members of the opposition on that figure, based on their knowledge of their areas and their understanding of the issues. I know that this hon. member does very careful research, and he has provided us with much of that research. That's probably another question that is coming up a little later.

[ Page 14549 ]

The regional advisory committees, the treaty advisory committees, the treaty negotiation advisory committees, the public forums that are happening out there, the people who are watching the negotiations on cable, the official opposition, the Third Party and the other opposition parties all need to be heard from with regard to the positions that this province is putting out there. That's why these are draft documents, and that's why the feedback that we receive from members opposite and from government MLAs is valuable. I appreciate this hon. member entering into that dialogue. I hope he will enter into it with constituents and keep me informed with regard to how that is going out there.

What I am saying is that what I've been hearing since that figure came out has been, for the most part, very positive. So we need to hear the public dialogue on that; we need to hear what the balance of opinion is on that. We need to think of it in the context of what it is that enables a people, which we want to see overcome the poverty and some of the dysfunction that has beset their lives because of an old relationship that doesn't work well... What is going to work, and what can we work together to build that will kick-start a new approach that will lead to an economically interdependent economy?

Before the hon. member came into the House, I referred to something that I think he's familiar with: Babine Forest Products, an aboriginal company that was assisted by some very responsible and well-qualified companies that have become part of that joint venture. It employs over 400 people, and most of them are non-aboriginal people. I think that those kinds of opportunities are what we want to see this process lead to.

It's also true that whatever the land base is at the end of the day -- whatever the percentage on a provincewide basis, whatever it is in a particular area -- that is only one part of a totality, and all those things have to be considered in that relationship. But there is no set formula that would lead to land quantum or money in any particular negotiation. It has to be something that relates to demographics, to the needs of existing leaseholders and licence holders, to the needs of the first nations, having identified their traditional uses, etc.

We also know that there are significant claims in areas where there is virtually no Crown land, and therefore, obviously, in those areas it's going to be a much lower land category. In areas such as the Nass, where it's.... I believe that there are fewer than 200 non-aboriginal persons living within the Nass claim area. When we consider that, we're considering an area where we might see the figure go somewhat higher.

[4:00]

So those demographics have to be a factor, and the geographical variations have to be a factor. That's one of the reasons that it's very important to be hearing feedback on these issues from all members of this House as well as members of the public. But we believe it serves a purpose to put those kinds of figures out there.

And, hon. member, I think that if you have not received copies of the documents we have been referring to, which were at the regional advisory committee table in Smithers and have been released at other regional advisory committees, we would like you to have an opportunity to look at them. I believe they respond to your point that you want to know how this fits into a number of other issues that also need to be considered. Those issues are included within those documents.

L. Fox: At the end of the line of questioning on this subject, I was going to request a copy of those documents, seeing as they are public, because I haven't seen them. Unfortunately, the negotiators met in Fort St. James, Vanderhoof and Fraser Lake over the course of last Thursday and Friday morning -- Wednesday and Thursday, I think it was. But as the minister will be well aware, it's not often easy to attend those when you have an obligation to be here, so I wasn't able to go to those particular meetings.

But I have had some feedback, and some of it concerns me a little bit. I'd like to throw this out to the minister. It appears -- well, without saying -- that the government has come a long way over the course of the last year with respect to land claims in terms of its position, in my view and now in the view of the natives. You've seen some of the headlines, as I have, where it's been perceived by some of the native leaders that the government is coming too far right on this issue. Some of this came out in the public meetings, particularly in Fort St. James.

I guess if I have one concern it is that the expectations of the native people were so high that we could see some reaction to that that may not be in the best interests of British Columbians. I'm not suggesting that you should go back on anything; I certainly support the direction that the government is moving toward. But I'm concerned about once again seeing more roadblocks and those kinds of issues becoming front and centre.

Certainly in my part of the country there are a lot of individual loggers who depend very heavily on access to wood products, and roadblocks do nothing but hurt the economy of the community as well as cause a further divide among the residents of the community, namely the aboriginal and non-aboriginal people. Maybe the minister might want to comment on that.

Hon. J. Cashore: There is a continuum of work that needs to be done in getting up to speed on a treaty-making process when this is historically very, very new. First of all, I want to point out that in British Columbia we have the most open treaty-making process in the modern history of Canada. I believe that a little bit of research that I've been looking into would also affirm that it's the most open treaty-making process in modern treaty-making history on the entire planet.

In order to be able to do our work with treaty-making, first we have to do what the Leader of the Third Party did -- the former Minister of Native Affairs in the Social Credit government -- which was to participate in commissioning a task force to advise governments and first nations on what would be involved in setting up a treaty commission process to resolve the land issue and other related issues. That was the first step: setting up the task force.

[B. Copping in the chair.]

The next step was to receive the report of the task force and then to decide whether or not to accept their recommendations. When this government came into power, it accepted the recommendations of that task force report that was, in part, commissioned by the Leader of the Third Party in his previous responsibilities. That involved the federal government, the provincial government and the First Nations Summit going through a great deal of work and negotiations in getting that process up and running and functioning. It then involved setting up the B.C. Treaty Commission. It then involved setting up the cost-sharing formula between the provincial and federal governments.

[ Page 14550 ]

It also involved the issue of mandate development. Mandate development simply means that when the negotiators go to the table, they go with that which reflects the needs of the people of British Columbia in this developing new relationship. Mandate development is a lot of work, and it takes time. It's not something that you can just pull off the shelf, because it's all brand-new. Mandate development work has been ongoing ever since the Treaty Commission was set up.

But first there had to be background research; there had to be the development of documents; there had to be the review at the various stages of decision-making. When those documents get to the stage where they are ready for release to the public, they have been and are being released to the public for comment.

When we talk about expectations being created, the fact is that you can't report to the public with regard to positions when you have not yet done that basic and fundamental work. It is true that there are expectations out there. A lot of those expectations have to do with a lot of things that different parties have said -- no question about that. There are a lot of different parties saying different things, depending on different agendas. So a number of statements have been made; that is quite true. Expectations have been created and there have been concomitant reactions to those expectations.

The fact is that this government has diligently followed a step-by-step process towards putting this process in place so that it can be handled well. We are on track with releasing these documents publicly at a time when we are ready. There is no question that in part of this process first nations are going to be making statements that represent their point of view. That is going to have an impact on expectations. But when we in government talk about developing a new and honourable relationship with first nations, that cannot be seen as creating an expectation that is unreasonable.

Nobody would consider a new and honourable relationship to be unreasonable. We need to bring this into context, bring it into a workable format and move from there. The feedback I was receiving from the Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee was that there is a much greater degree of comfort with the fact that we're able to get these positions out the door, get the public comment, and to make it very clear that that is the process whereby the mandates are being developed, so that when those mandates go to the table they represent the people of the region and of the province.

L. Fox: Just one quick question, and it's not related to the topic. Earlier the minister didn't refer to the fact that I had supplied him with a number of letters from constituents and people in the central region of the province who were having difficulties, to varying degrees, in acquiring their recreational lease lots. Has the minister had a chance to peruse those letters, and is he prepared to give the writers of those letters some comfort in terms of what action this government is going to take in order to resolve the issues around the referrals necessary to the local bands?

Hon. J. Cashore: Again, I want to commend the hon. member for the research he has done in pulling this sampling of referrals together. He advises me that this is only a sampling, that there are more. This is a very comprehensive dossier, including a wide variety of circumstances, and this is going to be helpful to us in understanding how to ensure that line ministries are in a position to deal with these very practical considerations. We have assigned this to our assistant deputy minister, Mr. Brant. He is going to be researching each and every one of the cases the hon. member has provided.

He is going to be reporting to the deputy and through to me, and I will be sharing that with the hon. member.

I see two things here. One is that we need to address the on-site issues that this hon. member is raising on behalf of his constituents. Second, we need to learn from this data how to make the system work better. I would reiterate what I've said before, that we need to ensure that all line ministries are setting clear time lines and are not taking positions that would suggest that if a first nation is refusing to respond to the consultation that that is a virtual veto. That is simply not on; it's not acceptable and it won't be tolerated.

We need to find a way to ascertain those issues that need the time and the focus, and the resources of government, and the other ones that we can get out the door and say: "Look we've done our due diligence. Get on with it." We have to make that very clear. So I do appreciate that we have that information.

L. Fox: Just one short follow-up. What kind of time frame are we looking at in terms of response back to the minister? As the minister is well aware, a number of the issues contained in the correspondence that he received from my constituents are issues that I should take up with the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. It would be very, very helpful if I could have some information back from this minister prior to the conclusion of the Ministry of Lands estimates.

Hon. J. Cashore: Our target to conclude that is one month, but I have asked Mr. Brant to meet with the hon. member to have a face-to-face discussion about how to get at this and also to discuss that issue about the part that deals with Environment, Lands and Parks, or any other line ministries, so that we can, hopefully, find a creative way to resolve this -- also recognizing that the Environment, Lands and Parks estimates are yet to come as well. We do recognize that it will be canvassed there. But we want to get those two aspects in sync, and they are now. I met with officials from Lands just the other day and got an update on the situation, and I think we're making headway.

F. Gingell: Just one quick question, which I believe can be answered with one word. I don't think anyone has asked it before. It's just the issue of the certainty that your ministry is not considering in any way that lands owned in fee simple by the municipalities in their own names could possibly be used as lands subject to land claims settlements and be part of settlement agreements.

Hon. J. Cashore: I will be speaking to the UBCM tomorrow. I'll be making that a very clear note in my speech tomorrow, so it will be on the record here and in the presence of representatives of the Union of B.C. Municipalities from all over the province.

[4:15]

V. Anderson: I understand there has been no discussion yet on the First Citizens' Fund in here, so I'd like to ask some questions about the First Citizens' Fund. Perhaps the minister might like to say a little about its present situation. When I was doing Aboriginal Affairs for awhile, I did some travel with the study that was being done about the First Citizens' Fund, so I'd like an update. I think it would be useful to have that on the record.

[ Page 14551 ]

Hon. J. Cashore: First of all, I do recognize the work of the select standing committee of which this hon. member has been a member. It did a review early on in our term in government, and I think that work was very, very useful. I know that there was the issue, which I believe came out of those recommendations, about transferring the First Citizens' Fund and those economic development initiatives and cultural heritage initiatives into the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture. We have decided that we are not going to do that, at least not in the foreseeable future. We're going to maintain the status quo and continue to manage that program within the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs.

With regard to the Aboriginal Affairs initiatives fund, if that's what the hon. member was referring to.... I believe I have the wrong document here. Hon. member, we're going to find the right document so I can give you an update that is based on the proper one.

We had the wrong document there, but with regard to the First Citizens' Fund, it is a fund which goes back quite some time. I believe it was initially based on an amount of $25 million; the funds come out of the interest. It's being used in a variety of ways, but one major component is that it provides small loans to aboriginal people who seek to get into business and who would not have an opportunity to do so otherwise. It's handled by an outside agency; in that sense, it is arm's length from government. The loans are 50 percent forgivable if the recipient is up to date with regard to the payback to the fund. It provides an opportunity....

Within that fund we have the friendship centre program, where the estimated expenditure is $845,000. It provides assistance with the operating expenses of friendship centres and the student bursary program, which again, is another program -- other than the one I just outlined -- involving small business development. The estimated expenditure for that, for the student bursaries, would be $116,244. There's also the elders' transportation fund program, which is $29,339. I don't know if the hon. member had the opportunity during the B.C.

Summer Games to attend the remarkable event the day before the official opening, when there were delegations arriving from all over the province and from the United States in dugout canoes. They arrived in the harbour, and they were received by many officials from various places in the world. There were a number of elders present at that time, on that very important and historic occasion, who were assisted by this fund.

I think that's about it for now.

V. Anderson: Regarding the suggestion, as I remember it, out of the study group, there were divided opinions about whether the fund should be maintained as it was or whether it should go out into another body, strictly outside the government, for economic and cultural development.

I appreciate the comment about the elders' travel fund, because as far as I am aware, that's a new development that wasn't there at the time we were dealing with it, because I didn't hear about it -- I don't remember hearing about it. So that is a new part of the fund that wasn't in the original mandate and apparently has been added somewhere. I know there was an outside advisory body, representative from across the province. Is that outside advisory body still functioning and advising the minister on the activities and the use of that fund? That was also a part of that previous discussion.

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer to the last question is yes. I have met with that advisory group on a number of occasions.

I'd like to take this opportunity to mention that the hon. member for Vancouver-Langara and I share a very similar background. We're good friends. We're also ministers of the United Church of Canada, and because of that, we've both had the opportunity to be in contact with a number of first nations people who have had a traditional contact with the church that we come from. We know a lot of the same people. He was commenting on the elders, and I know the respect that the member has for elders within aboriginal communities here in B.C. and also in Saskatchewan.

I will just mention mutual friends: Rev. Fred Anderson, who works at the Friendship House Association of Prince Rupert; and Gerry Sampson, who's a member of the Lax Kw'alaams village and is in charge of the elders program there. They have also been able to access that fund. It's not as large as I would like it to be, but one of the things that is very important and very useful right now in the context of the ferment and change that's taking place is the wisdom of the elders. That's something that I think all of us honour and respect. I would just point out that in the 1994-95 fiscal year, we provided 29 elders' organizations with assistance to attend cultural or educational gatherings.

V. Anderson: I can't resist saying that while we have the same background, we argued in the church as much as we argue in politics. It's a common theme: we don't always agree no matter where we are, although we have a common background and a common concern. I do appreciate the hon. minister's comment about appreciating the elders. That's extremely true, because of the leadership that they give and will continue to give.

Perhaps I can take some of the phrases one by one. The student bursary fund. Could you indicate how many students have used that or are expected to use it in the current year? What educational program has been set up to let people know that that's available? I know that when we were travelling the province, we found almost minimal awareness of that fund being available, and we discovered that many people who might make use of it just didn't know it existed.

As we went from band to band and group to group, and as I talked to aboriginal young people in other situations, I discovered that there was very little knowledge of this opportunity. I'm wondering if anything is being done to make that more available. Have the number of students using that increased over the last two or three years?

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is that it has increased. We are providing that information to our regional coordinators to help to make that available. During '94-95, in answer to the hon. member's question, it provided 140 bursaries totalling $126,000 to aboriginal students attending post-secondary institutions.

I want to take this opportunity, while the hon. member for Vancouver-Langara is engaging in the debate, to say that I think I speak on behalf of both of us in recognizing the very important work taking place in the province, of investigating the abuses in residential schools, with which the church that we come from has a history. There's some remarkable work being done among first nations in the context of healing. We in government and we with a background in such an institution as the church that bears part of the historical

responsibil-

[ Page 14552 ]

ity.... That is something -- I know this member and I have discussed this -- that we must take very, very seriously, in seeking to recognize the importance of that healing. I put that also in the context that I see this as a recognition of a historical fact, which indeed has a very real element that is shameful.

I also want to say, having recognized that, that this is not the basis upon which we achieve new treaties, because I don't think that's the kind of emotional state we want people to be in when developing new and effective treaties for the future. But we must acknowledge history and recognize the lessons of history. Now that we have this new opportunity to create something that is honourable and new, we must ensure in doing so that we do it in a way that ends the ravages of paternalism and begins a relationship in which people can walk side by side, so that we never see those kinds of horrendous experiences again.

V. Anderson: Since the minister has opened up that line of conversation, I must say I appreciate it and must respond somewhat to it, supporting what he has said but also supporting one of the lessons that I think the non-aboriginal people have learned. Because of the attempt, well-meaning or not, to educate aboriginal children outside their own families and communities, taking them off to residential schools, they in effect deprived them of an understanding, appreciation and experience of what family is in their own context.

We had a whole generation of students, young people who became adults, who did not learn or have the experience of learning from their families -- from fathers and mothers, uncles and aunts -- and who did not have the experience of living on the land, trapping, fishing or doing all of these things which are so fundamental. So these young people were not only deprived of a very important heritage but also of an identity of themselves in relationship to their families, which has made it very difficult for them to settle back into their own communities -- or to adapt to the other because they knew who they were.

[4:30]

I remember travelling one day with a young aboriginal girl. She commented that somebody one day had asked her when she discovered she was aboriginal, because she was not brought up in an aboriginal setting. She replied, after she thought for a few minutes, and said: "I always knew I was aboriginal." The problem was to know what that meant or what was involved in being aboriginal or in being who she was or in being able to relate that to others who were with her in her lifestyle. So there are many lessons that we have to learn.

Also, I can't resist saying that in our negotiations, in our meeting with aboriginal people, we need to understand -- what I've had to learn -- that the process by which they relate is quite different than the process we often relate with. That was pointed out to me by an aboriginal person from Africa, who was an editor who came here to Canada to study mission work in the churches in this part of the world.

I asked him about his relationships as he met with the aboriginal people, and he said: "We have a great deal in common, and we're quite different from you." His way of explaining it was that when two non-aboriginal people meet they are likely to describe who they are by what makes them different from the person they are talking to. When two aboriginal people meet or when they meet with non-aboriginal people, they understand themselves in relationship to that person, not in separation from them. That makes a great deal of distinction in the kind of relationship....

Another thing which I think is relevant when we talk about land claims talks is the illustration of an aboriginal person who is saying that he had gone to visit his close friend: he went in, he visited for two hours and he went home again, and not one word was spoken in the two hours they were together. But they had communicated with depth and with meaning and with purpose. So I'm sure that a great deal of the conversation that goes on in "land claims talks" is in the area where there is silence -- in what's not being said.

I've had the opportunity to work with a Japanese community within the church where they spoke mostly in Japanese. I was delighted to discover that I could generally get the feeling of what was happening without understanding the language. Every once in awhile they would tell me what the topic was, and I could follow it. At that point I was no longer listening to the language, I was listening to the other methods of communication. So in developing this relationship, I would affirm, along with the minister, that we have a great deal to learn. That was also part of the experience as I travelled in that commission.

I was really concerned that more aboriginal people did not know about the bursaries and have the opportunity to make use of them, and that the funds were therefore not being used in the same category.

I want to ask about the native friendship centres, because, if I remember, at one point there was about $30,000 available to each friendship centre, and there was some discussion about increasing that. There was also some discussion of whether others "not strictly friendship centres but bodies who presented the same kind of activity" would also be able to apply. There was some indication that that could be broadened out. I am wondering how many centres are now receiving funds, and if others of a similar nature, but not necessarily under that title, are now also being supported through that fund.

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is no. There are just the 21 centres that are being supported by the fund. The $30,000 figure the hon. member referred to is correct; it hasn't been increased. I think that answers the question.

V. Anderson: Perhaps I could follow that one up. Has there been any discussion with the friendship centres and the advisory committee about some of these cost-of-living increases? I know the cost of operation continues, and if it remains the same, in effect it becomes a decrease year by year. Is this, like student bursaries, under active review, or does it become a formality that happens without a review each year?

Hon. J. Cashore: It's always under active review. Through a president's council we also have work proceeding towards establishing an off-reserve policy table. The B.C. Association of Indian Friendship Centres, with Wally Samuel as president, is on that president's council that's working towards establishing a joint policy table with government.

The point, though, that I think we need to recognize here is that when we talk about reviewing the amounts going into these programs, the provincial government is caught between a rock and hard place because of federal off-loading. And if we go down that road, we facilitate what I consider in this instance to be an irresponsible off-load. It places burdens on the very people who are a big part of the solution. And we

[ Page 14553 ]

know through the federal secretary of state that the off-loading of their responsibility in this area is just simply unacceptable. I would hope that the hon. member would join me in seeking to continue to make that point with the federal authorities -- that it's penny wise and pound foolish for them to off-load in this area and not recognize the social benefit of the work that organizations such as friendship centres do.

V. Anderson: I appreciate your comments. I'll come back to the off-reserve policy table in a few moments, but first of all I'll continue with the discussion that we've been on.

In the economic and cultural area that the minister mentioned, in the earlier days of this fund -- as I was aware of it before I came into government -- the funds in this third

section were almost entirely used for cultural development. And there were a great many cultural organizations and aboriginal programs that were developed around the province with that cultural focus of the fund. There was a shift, partly I think because of the advisory council or partly because of government -- I was never able to figure out where that shift came from or who did it. Everybody said it had taken place, but nobody was willing to either take credit or blame for it.

So at the time we were doing the study, very little money was going into cultural, apart from a language program -- there's another program, but I forget the exact name of it at the moment. But most of the funds, almost 80 percent of this section, were going into economic development.

Part of the study was to raise the issue of whether it should continue in economic development, because there were other places and other forms that that money could partner with, but there were very few places where the cultural work could be undertaken with the same validity of bringing together the community in understanding their basic cultural selves. So there was a question about shifting back at least part of the funds to the cultural side. I'm wondering where it stands now and whether the economic and cultural are in balance, or whether there's still a balance one way or the other.

Hon. J. Cashore: The language program funding has been increased, and last year we provided $1.9 million to the first peoples' cultural foundation to fund capital and cultural projects, as recommended by the advisory council.

V. Anderson: I appreciate knowing that. I'm glad that the cultural area has been put back into the equation again, because I personally felt it was very important that it should be there, as well as the financial help.

In discussing, then, the economic end of the program, there were a number of discussions that took place. One was the supporting of funds through the aboriginal lending agencies, of which there were one major one and some minor ones throughout the province. Perhaps the minister might indicate to me at this point what the main areas are and through what lending agencies these economic funds are being made available. Are there still one or two major agencies? Are there a number of smaller agencies throughout the province? What kind of process is in place?

I know that one of the arguments was that by working through a large, major agency, they would be better able to access matching funds from the federal government and private industry;

whereas if you went to the smaller agencies, they were more accessible in other parts of the province but didn't access the same kinds of matching funds. So there were pros and cons both ways.

Hon. J. Cashore: There is one agency called ANTCO, and they subcontract advisory services to smaller agencies.

V. Anderson: That is, I believe, in Kelowna or Kamloops.

Interjection.

V. Anderson: Kamloops? Thank you. So it has come down now to the one major agency, and they are subcontracting out to the others.

In the initial stage, there was an attempt to work with the credit unions. In fact, before ANTCO came into being in the first couple of years, there was, through the credit union in Surrey, I believe.... We travelled around and met with bands in communities where there are no banks, in most cases. They're isolated from the communities. Those people are not being there.

Knowing the history of credit unions in undeveloped countries around the world -- which came out of the Maritimes in the initial stages, and for which Canada is rightly famous -- I've always been curious why, in encouraging economic development, there wasn't some process for encouraging and working with the credit unions to enable the local communities to develop.

Coming out of small towns in Saskatchewan.... In most of those smaller communities of 200 or 300 people, the credit union is still there. That is very similar to the band situation. It seems to me that that opportunity was raised as we travelled throughout the province. A research project came out of that study that might be followed up as an opportunity to extend a facility to other bands throughout the province. That will never be available through the banks but could be available through this cooperation. It was raised quite often in our travels, but it was left to be followed up further.

[4:45]

Hon. J. Cashore: We did that to support an aboriginal lending institution. We can explore that very interesting suggestion at the table in treaty negotiations.

V. Anderson: Perhaps the minister might comment.... He listed a fourth category: administrative costs for certain social and economic development programs. I would think that that's also a new factor that wasn't there originally. It's a fourth one that the minister mentioned in his presentation, and I'm wondering if he might comment on that fourth one.

Hon. J. Cashore: There is an application form that people can use to write to the social and economic opportunities fund, and then we can address that.

V. Anderson: Following up on the First Citizens' Fund, one of the things that we discovered as we were travelling throughout the province was that people were dealing with different ministries, and they were getting economic, cultural or social development funds from almost every ministry -- from Health, Education, Social Services, Municipal Affairs or whatever. There didn't seem to be any coordination, relationship or understanding between the different ministries about what was happening with the aboriginal communities approaching the government, so there was a great deal of consternation and concern. It seemed logical that the kind of coordination and sharing that should take place in

under-

[ Page 14554 ]

standing and being able to access or effectively use these funds should come through the Aboriginal Affairs ministry -- at least it seemed logical in that regard. That was to be followed up, and I'm wondering what's happened as a result of that follow-up, and if the process has changed or improved.

Hon. J. Cashore: We now have a committee of all social and economic directors, which is chaired by the director within my ministry. That should address the concern the hon. member has.

V. Anderson: Pardon me, hon. Chair. I missed the response, having to deal with House business. I'm wondering if he could repeat that for me. I was interrupted by the House Leader, who had to set up the agenda.

Hon. J. Cashore: Chaired by....

Interjection.

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, I am now going to wait until this hon. member is listening to me -- and that's not a theological debate, either.

The directors have formed a committee of all social and economic directors, which is chaired by a director within the Aboriginal Affairs ministry. That should address the issue the hon. member is raising.

V. Anderson: Thank you.

I also want to comment that when we were travelling, we were often hosted by some of the aboriginal economic development persons who were working in the area. I want to share how excellent, professional, warm, friendly and accommodating those people were. It was what I expected I would find, from previous experience, but it was even more so. I also want to share with everyone their competence, knowledge and ability, and how they went way out of their way to drive us long distances. Also, I'm not sure how they were able to keep up with the demanding work they did out in those areas.

I would like to take a moment, then, to move on from that and ask the minister a bit about the off-reserve policy table he mentioned. We both have a common background of being aware of what happens to off-reserve people, particularly urban aboriginal people. From what I've heard so often in many of our discussions, these persons, up until this point, have been neglected in the discussions. The opportunity within the urban area for aboriginal people to come together and work with a system which is totally non-aboriginal and has very little understanding of their needs is a very crucial issue.

There are two issues there: the off-reserve policy table, which I gather has to do with treaty negotiations; and the focus on relating and working with aboriginal persons within the city. One of the key factors that aboriginal people have related to me, which the minister will know well, is having lost their family ties and relationships, and the opportunity to maintain what was crucial in their lifestyle within the urban setting.

Hon. J. Cashore: First of all, the policy tables are not involved in treaty-making. But they are tables that we seek to get up and running and that would help us to deal primarily with some very practical issues that have to do with the urban first nations populations and to recognize that while there are many first nations people who have taken their place within the urban area and are functioning very well, there are also those who are having difficulty. The people who are best able to assist in dealing with and helping those people are aboriginal people themselves.

The president's council that we have, which is working towards establishing this table, is, I think, doing very good work in seeking to bring a number of organizations under one umbrella and in recognizing the economies of scale that can be achieved in that kind of process. It involves the B.C. association of friendship centres, the United Native Nations, the aboriginal women's association, the Native Brotherhood, and several other urban organizations. I am very interested in that being a very practical approach, dealing with services -- dealing with practical issues.

I don't think it should get into dealing with issues that are simply going to take up time but not achieve results. So as that gets up and running, I'm looking forward to that being a very practical resource.

V. Anderson: I would concur, and I'm delighted to hear that's developing. It's been long overdue. I would gather it's just in the process of organizing. When you are looking at the relationship of all the departments and ministries of government, is there a way in which the interministerial aboriginal concerns of the ministries are being tied into that?

Because I know that in the area of Social Services -- and Health, at the moment -- there is a great deal of concern about inadequacy and misunderstanding in the relationships between those ministries and the aboriginal urban communities as well as some of the rural areas -- but particularly in the urban community, where there isn't the same band framework to work with. So that interministry working with the group in the urban areas seem to be two separate sides that somehow need to be brought together.

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, in two ways. First of all, the interministerial directors' committee ensures that those line ministry interests are represented within that process. Secondly, when the table is up and running, it would involve ministers themselves in those joint meetings.

V. Anderson: Just a final question, to clarify. I understand that that off-reserve policy committee is going to involve the larger centres, particularly Prince George, Prince Rupert, Kamloops, Vancouver and Victoria. How much of the urban milieu will be involved in that? Does that include both "status" and "non-status" Metis and all of the different concerns of the aboriginal people who are living within the city? Or is it limited geographically, or limited by the background of the persons who are part of it?

Hon. J. Cashore: It includes all of those areas that the hon. member has referred to, through their organizations. For instance, there are 21 friendship centres throughout the province, and I think they reach into virtually all the areas the hon. member referred to. With regard to the Metis, that would be a separate table.

A. Warnke: I would like to follow up on one more question. It's a question that I want to address later to the Minister of Environment as well. It concerns a recent story that has come out about the attempt by a band in the state of Washington -- the Makah band -- who have expressed their

[ Page 14555 ]

desire to embark on the annual killing of five grey whales. I suppose that would normally be restricted to what's occurring in Washington State, but as soon as the story came out, immediately the response was: "That's all very fine for the Makah band to say they are only going to focus on five grey whales annually." But the slippery slope was obviously there, that if any sort of provision would be extended to the Makah band.... To be sure, they want to kill whales for the purposes of ceremonial and domestic uses.

But the slippery slope is that other bands on the Pacific coast could start to focus on whales; that possibly they're available as well. Sure enough, it didn't take long before the Nuu-chah-nulth expressed their desire to hunt whales as well.

The grey whales have been on the extinct list, and they have just been pulled off the protected list. The United States has had the grey whales on the endangered list for the last 50 years, until the grey whale population built up again. I take it that there are about 20,000 grey whales migrating between Mexico and Alaska. It sounds like a very, very large figure on the one hand, yet if there is open season on the whales, we could be right back where we started from.

As it pertains to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs -- and I want some of his comments on it -- conservation consciousness is expanding. Part of that comes from a lot of people who are genuinely interested in conservation, and they include a lot of non-aboriginals who know a lot about the conservation field and, in this case, about the protection of whales.

They see whales not as some sort of living organism to be exploited by humans; a lot of people -- aboriginals and non-aboriginals -- have said that there is a heck of a lot more important at stake than just seeing whales as some sort of living organism to be exploited. This constitutes a very serious problem for a lot of people. I suppose in one way this transcends aboriginals and non-aboriginals. As we near the end of the twentieth century, there are a lot of people who are more conservation- and ecology-conscious, and conscious, especially, of complex animals on this planet.

They want to do whatever they can to protect them, because they are such an inte