2006 Legislative Session: Second Session, 38th 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)

MONDAY, APRIL 3, 2006

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 8, Number 11

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Hockey Canada

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First

Reading of Bills

Employment and Income Assistance

Statutes Amendment Act, 2006 (Bill 21)

Hon. C.

Richmond

Supplements Repeal Act (Bill 26)

Hon. W.

Oppal

Resort Timber Administration Act

(Bill 24)

Hon. O.

Ilich

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Rosewood Manor

J. Yap

New convention centre for

Victoria

Karagianis

Port Moody Festival of the Arts

I. Black

Walk against racism in Campbell

River

Trevena

Agriculture industry in B.C.

Cantelon

Terminator seed technology

Ralston

Oral Questions

Government response to

allegations against B.C. lobbyists

C. James

Hon. W.

Oppal

Lobbyists registration

legislation

Farnworth

Hon. W.

Oppal

J. Kwan

L. Krog

Changes to fire commissioner

office

Macdonald

Hon. J.

Les

C. Evans

Copeman clinic investigation

Cubberley

Hon. G.

Abbott

Billing practices of surgical clinic in

Abbotsford

Cubberley

Hon. G.

Abbott

Lobbyists registration

legislation

Horgan

Hon. M.

de Jong

Hon. G.

Campbell

Simpson

Petitions

D. Routley

J. Horgan

K. Conroy

M. Farnworth

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Aboriginal

Relations and Reconciliation (continued)

Fraser

Hon. T.

Christensen

H. Lali

C. Wyse

Simpson

Simons

G. Coons

Routley

MacKay

Simpson

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of

Agriculture and Lands (continued)

S. Simpson

Hon. P. Bell

J. Horgan

N. Simons

G. Coons

C. Evans

Ralston

C. Wyse

Simpson

Austin

Robertson

[ Page 3589 ]

MONDAY, APRIL 3, 2006

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Hon. T. Christensen: I have a number of special guests that I would like to introduce today. As members of the House are aware, our Legislative Assembly regularly hosts parliamentary Clerks from other jurisdictions to visit our House through attachment programs. This week I am particularly pleased to welcome some special guests from the Nisga'a Lisims government in New Aiyansh — the first aboriginal participants on attachment to this Legislature.

There'll be a number of people here throughout the week, but today we're joined in the gallery by Tracey Fleck, Nisga'a Lisims government in-house legal counsel. I haven't seen Tracey since she and I graduated from UVic law school together. It's good to reacquaint with her. She is joined, as well, by Bobby Clark, Nisga'a Lisims government legislative assistant. I would ask that the House please join me in making both these guests very welcome today.

[1405]

Hon. L. Reid: "Connecting people who care with causes that matter" signifies the very fine work of the Victoria Foundation, which this year is celebrating its 70th anniversary. The Victoria Foundation was established by

an act of this Legislature on April 1, 1936, by people who, in the midst of the Depression, had the faith and foresight to establish this foundation.

If you live on southern Vancouver Island, the Victoria Foundation has touched your life. Each year they provide grants to hundreds of charitable organizations. These grants improve people's quality of life, provide better health and living conditions, protect our environment and heritage, and support creativity and artistic expression. The Victoria Foundation assists with community capacity-building. Their work results in more cohesive communities.

The first gift of the Victoria Foundation was in 1936, and it was $20 from Fannie Gadsden, a generous Victoria resident. A newly created fund for the use of the British Columbia Youth Parliament will assist with the annual operation of the B.C. Youth Parliament session held in these chambers each Christmas, bringing together 16-to-21-year-olds from across British Columbia.

Joining us in the gallery today to mark two milestones — $70 million on deposit and 70 years of service — are Sandra Richardson, the executive director of the Victoria Foundation; Joan Barton, legislative librarian from 1968 to 2003; and Keri Simmons, chair of the British Columbia Youth Parliament Alumni Society. Hon. members, please make them incredibly welcome.

Tributes

HOCKEY CANADA

Hon. G. Campbell: Last December and January, British Columbia had the honour of hosting the World Junior Hockey Championships. Ten teams of over 200 of the world's best young players came to compete in the games in Vancouver, Kelowna and Kamloops, with attendance totalling 400,000 people. No doubt you'll see many of these young players again in 1,410 days when we host the Olympic and Paralympic Games here in British Columbia.

What's important is that all British Columbians embraced the World Junior Hockey Championship. It brought $30 million into the provincial economy. In fact, it generated $1.5 million for Hockey Canada across the country, and I think that bodes well. When we think of the gold-medal performance of our women in Torino, the gold-medal performance of our sledge hockey team in Torino, and when we have this kind of support for hockey across the country, we have an opportunity to get three gold medals in 2010.

Certainly, Hockey Canada wanted to say thank you to all of the members of this Legislature, so I wanted to inform the House that Hockey Canada has provided each and every one of you with your own special Hockey Canada jersey with your name on the back of it. Now people are going to be able to recognize you when you walk down the street with this jersey on.

An Hon. Member: Hey, we're okay with that.

Hon. G. Campbell: I was just on the Sunshine Coast on the weekend, and in the immortal words of Han Solo: "Don't get cocky, kid."

The opportunities that we have here are great, but most importantly, it sends a message of thanks from Hockey Canada to all the members of this Legislature. I think we should return that thanks by recognizing the contribution of Hockey Canada.

Introductions by Members

Hon. P. Bell: I'm very pleased today to welcome a number of people from the agriculture community to the House. As we were out in front today presenting all the different booths and the 4-H and the fairs and exhibitions circuit, I had some interesting statistics passed on to me. Our farming community is the third most trusted group of individuals in society, behind only firefighters and nurses — and just slightly ahead of politicians. I would like to welcome all the individuals that have come for Agriculture Day, and particularly Steve Thomson and Dick Klein Geltink from the B.C. Ag Council. Welcome to all of them.

H. Bains: In the House today is my good friend David Black and Andy Ross from COPE, and many others are with them from their organization. Would the House please join me and extend to them a warm welcome.

[1410]

Hon. J. van Dongen: I certainly want to join with the minister in welcoming all the farmers to the Legislature. I do want to welcome a couple of special guests: my son Peter van Dongen, who is here with his wife Clarice Springford. I see that they have another member of the farm media with them — John Wilcox.

[ Page 3590 ]

I want to declare to you that my son has a conflict of interest, because he writes for the farm media. I just wanted you to know that, Mr. Speaker, and ask the House to make them all welcome.

J. Kwan: I rise in the House to introduce Sophie Hije and Jamen Mohsen, I believe — if I mispronounced your name, I apologize — and the Kurdish women's group, which meets in my constituency. I ask the House to please welcome these special guests.

Hon. L. Reid: I would simply ask the members to make welcome my niece Michelle Greig, who's visiting today.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME ASSISTANCE

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2006

Hon. C. Richmond presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Employment and Income Assistance Statutes Amendment Act, 2006.

Hon. C. Richmond: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Richmond: It's my pleasure to introduce Bill 21, which supports amendments to the Employment and Assistance Act and the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act. These acts, which came into force in 2002, guide the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance as it carries out its mandate to provide income assistance, disability assistance and employment programs for British Columbians in need.

The act supports a culture of personal responsibility, self-reliance and employment, and gives ministry staff the tools required to provide assistance, create opportunity and support independence. The amendments I am introducing today are intended to increase our ability to serve our clients in a fair and caring way while at the same time strengthening and protecting the sustainability and integrity of the British Columbia employment and assistance program.

The amendments include legislation in three areas:

definitions of "dependent" and "spouse," sanctions for inaccurate or incomplete reporting of circumstances, and information-sharing agreements.

The

definitions of dependent and spouse are critical components in how the ministry determines eligibility for assistance. To ensure that individuals receiving income assistance who reside with another person or persons are treated fairly and consistently, we are proposing to amend these

definitions to ensure that they clearly distinguish between true spousal-dependency relationships and relationships of people who the ministry would not expect to support each other financially.

We are also seeking to introduce legislation that will encourage clients to accurately and completely report their circumstances related to income and assets and their employment and family-unit status — legislation that will result in fewer overpayments and less abuse of our programs. This change also ensures that clients who take the necessary steps to provide accurate information are treated fairly.

I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[1415]

Bill 21, Employment and Income Assistance Statutes Amendment Act, 2006, 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.

SUPPLEMENTS REPEAL ACT

Hon. W. Oppal presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Supplements Repeal Act.

Hon. W. Oppal: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. W. Oppal: You will no doubt be impressed by the brevity of my remarks, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to introduce Bill 26, Supplements Repeal Act. This bill will make law more certain and predictable and will allow for a more efficient use of resources by repealing or by re-enacting all the remaining provisions from the 1996 statutory supplements. These supplements contain all the provisions that were enacted but not put in force at that time and are still not in force today. Bill 26 will repeal outdated supplements that will never be brought into force; allow for other supplements to be repealed by regulation, if and when appropriate; and re-enact supplements that remain potentially useful and may still be brought into force at a later date.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[ Page 3591 ]

Bill 26, Supplements Repeal Act, 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.

RESORT TIMBER ADMINISTRATION ACT

Hon. O. Ilich presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Resort Timber Administration Act.

Hon. O. Ilich: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. O. Ilich: I am pleased to introduce Bill 24, which creates the Resort Timber Administration Act. Government released its resort strategy and action plan in November of 2004. One of the recommendations featured in the resort strategy is the need for improved efficiency in the resort development application and approval process.

The Resort Timber Administration Act will enable the transfer, by regulation, of specific powers and responsibilities under the Forest Act and the Forest and Range Practices Act from the Minister of Forests and Range to the Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts. This act will enable officials of the ministry to authorize timber harvesting and associated actions for Crown timber management for the purpose of all-seasons resort development.

This bill also introduces amendments to the Forest Act. These amendments will enable the creation of new types of forestry licences to cut that could be used to facilitate timber harvesting for resort development purposes.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 24, Resort Timber Administration Act, 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.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) ROSEWOOD MANOR

J. Yap: I rise today to talk about the imminent completion of 30 new rooms at the Rosewood Manor care home in my riding of Richmond-Steveston. Vancouver Coastal Health Authority provided $6.5 million for this addition, and a further $218,000 was raised by Rosewood Manor's volunteers for electric beds and other furnishings.

By 2010 Richmond is projected to have 44 percent more seniors. Rosewood Manor is a 120-resident, not-for-profit facility that will help address the needs of Richmond's aging population. Rosewood Manor's campus of care is renowned for its quality of service, including a memory-impaired floor.

[1420]

Rosewood Manor Foundation initiated the Furnish a Room campaign to raise $218,000 to provide the electric beds and other furnishings for the Manor's 30 new rooms. With the help of community development director Adrienne White, their fundraising target was achieved. Richmond truly came together and got behind the Furnish a Room campaign. The poppy fund, Army, Navy and Air Force Local 284, the Richmond firefighters and many individuals donated their time and money to Furnish a Room. I'm also very proud of my Rotary club, the Richmond Sunset Rotary Club, for their contribution to this campaign.

The Furnish a Room campaign was so successful that Volunteer Richmond awarded the Rosewood Manor Foundation the Nova Star award for innovation in volunteering. It's great to see the community of Richmond come together to support our seniors and get behind our government's great goal to build the best system of support in Canada for seniors. With projects like the Rosewood expansion, we're making progress towards adding 5,000 assisted-living and residential care beds throughout B.C. by 2008.

NEW CONVENTION CENTRE FOR VICTORIA

M. Karagianis: I rise today to speak on my support for a new convention centre for Greater Victoria. It's an idea that is exactly right for the times. In a region where the primary economic engine is the service sector, the infrastructure in the capital region supports a year-round economy of visitors. But to service these visitors and to increase the appeal of our region, we need tourism facilities. That includes an expanded Belleville terminal and a new convention centre.

I spoke about this during the election campaign, and I'm speaking about it again today because it makes sense in very many ways. The Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce and Tourism Victoria both agree with me. In today's market, a successful convention centre must be able to accommodate larger groups of up to 3,000 delegates and must include an exhibition venue. Our conference centre, created in 1989, is a great facility but doesn't have the capacity that a convention market now demands. A new Victoria convention centre would draw new visitors and markets to our region and add economic value. That's very important for our businesses.

Most of the tourism operators in this region are small to mid-sized businesses, and as the Small Business critic, I know just how much business our community relies on that is generated by both business and leisure travellers. Visitors' spending ripples throughout our local community. With revenues of more than $1 billion annually, tourism is a key economic driver in this region. I'm thrilled that Vancouver is getting a new world-class convention centre, but Greater Victoria has been left out.

[ Page 3592 ]

The provincial government needs to take a leadership role, pulling the stakeholders together and working to make a convention centre for Victoria a reality. We're missing out on lucrative business otherwise.

PORT MOODY FESTIVAL OF THE ARTS

I. Black: It is a privilege for me to serve the four communities of Anmore, Belcarra, Port Moody and Coquitlam, whose distinct identities from one another help make my role as a representative fascinating and indeed highly rewarding. Today I get to brag about one of them and the remarkable contribution it makes to our great province.

Over the years Port Moody has repeatedly and rightfully earned its reputation, both provincially and nationally, as the city of the arts. On Friday night I was honoured to celebrate with hundreds of our citizens the opening of the anchor event of Port Moody's annual arts calendar, the ninth annual Festival of the Arts. The mission of the festival is to bring arts and culture to the people. Encouraging a broad degree of engagement and participation, it offers a wonderful opportunity to enjoy world-class performances at prices that allow all to be involved and participate.

The festival is organized by the non-profit Port Moody Arts Centre Society and its hundreds of volunteers. They have consistently and dramatically evolved this festival to not only showcase our home-grown talent but also to attract and include acts of national and growing international stature. Utilizing 22 different theatres, studios and other venues, the festival includes original performances and exhibits of comedy, music, dance, visual arts, provocative film documentaries from around the world and straight-up, hands-on fun for little kids.

When we celebrate arts, culture and heritage, when we take the time to experience a wide diversity of artistic expression, we not only make a statement about our values as a society but also reach out within and beyond our communities to learn, to develop and to allow ourselves to be inspired. Let the bragging begin. Nowhere is it celebrated better and experienced in a more inclusive and world-class fashion than in Port Moody, British Columbia.

[1425]

WALK AGAINST RACISM

IN CAMPBELL RIVER

C. Trevena: I rise today to talk about a joyful but somewhat sad occasion I attended on the weekend. I, along with 400 or so other people, joined in a walk against racism. It was the tenth anniversary walk organized by Campbell River's Multicultural and Immigrant Services Association through the streets of the city. It brought together people of all ages, people of all ethnicities, for a day of celebration — a day where we could relish our ethnic diversity and the fact that we are a truly multicultural society.

We ate foods from different cultures, we listened to music, and we watched entertainment performed by a culturally mixed group of women. We came to share, to learn from one another and to grow as a community.

But it was with sadness that we were doing it — sadness that in the 21st century we still have a need to say no to racism, still have to go out onto the streets to say that racism is wrong and we need to combat it. The Campbell River walk is one of the largest in the province to mark the UN day against racism, which in itself was established to mark the Sharpville massacre in South Africa.

Racism is an evil — an evil we should not see in our multicultural country. We cannot let fear and ignorance breed racism. MISA, the multicultural organization, has a program, Youth for Diversity, to get that anti-racist message to the city's young people. Those young people were in attendance on Saturday, along with many others. That's why the event on Saturday was so important.

In each community we have to stand up and say that racism is wrong. We need to be able to work together to build our multicultural communities and our multicultural society, so maybe sometime in the future we won't have to walk away from racism, because racism won't exist.

AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY IN B.C.

R. Cantelon: I rise today to remind the members of the House that you are what you eat. Today is B.C. Agriculture Day and the perfect opportunity for us to recognize the outstanding contribution made by this industry to our province. I believe that we should be very proud of our agricultural sector and the products that they produce.

As we found out this morning, courtesy of the member for Delta South, British Columbia has more diversification in this sector than any other province in Canada. Many of the products we eat and drink every day come from right here in B.C. I don't think enough people recognize that the items like hothouse tomatoes, wines, apples from the Okanagan, grain from the northeast and many meat products are indeed grown and raised right here in our province.

One way we can get out and see the wide variety of products that our agricultural industry is producing is by visiting your local farmers' market on a Sunday morning. It's a great opportunity to get out and purchase fresh and local produce and meet the people who produced it. In my community we have Pipers Meat Cleaver, a retailer for great meat and poultry products, specializing in local island products. Anybody who has had the good fortune to enjoy any of their items knows the benefits of eating healthy, local products.

I would like to finish up by talking about the agriculture planning committee. This committee, which I sit on, will be touring around the province and hearing from British Columbians to establish a sustainable, long-term plan for the agricultural sector. I look forward to being part of this committee and working with the industry and the public to help ensure that our

[ Page 3593 ]

agriculture sector continues to be a key component of our economy.

TERMINATOR SEED TECHNOLOGY

B. Ralston: I wish to use the occasion of the visit of representatives of B.C. agriculture to speak about an important agricultural issue. I wish to speak about the so-called terminator seed technology. If adopted, the terminator seed would change agricultural practices in existence since the beginnings of early agricultural civilizations of the Tigris, the Nile, the Indus and the Ganges.

Terminator technology genetically modifies plants to render sterile seeds at harvest. The farmer is thus prevented from replanting seeds from that harvest. Small-scale farmers from around the world face the biggest threat, since their abilities to grow and improve crops depends on selecting seeds and saving seeds from year to year.

For many communities around the world, particularly indigenous ones, seed saving is connected with traditional knowledge relating to agricultural biodiversity and deeply held cultural and spiritual traditions.

[1430]

Environmental groups oppose terminator seeds. They threaten agricultural biodiversity and pose new biosafety threats. The seed and biotechnology industry supports the terminator seed in order to protect corporate patents, particularly of genetically modified seeds, therefore requiring farmers to buy commercial seed each season.

In 2000 the UN convention on biological diversity adopted language that created a de facto international moratorium on terminator seeds, recommending that governments neither field-test nor commercialize genetic seed sterilization technologies. At the UN convention on biological diversity last week in Curitiba, Brazil, the U. S. government — together with Australia, Canada, New Zealand and a number of biotech companies — attempted to open the door to field-testing of terminator seeds by insisting on a case-by-case assessment of such technologies. The working groups of the convention on biological diversity unanimously rejected this proposal.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO ALLEGATIONS

AGAINST B.C. LOBBYISTS

My question to the Premier: will the Premier now admit that bribery involving senior political advisers in the offices of the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Transportation and the public affairs bureau had everything to do with this government?

Hon. W. Oppal: I'm sure the member, the Leader of the Opposition, well knows that these matters are presently before the courts. They will be the subject of cross-examination, no doubt, and it would be totally improper for anyone to respond to those allegations at this stage.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

C. James: I do, Mr. Speaker. Six months before the raids on the Legislature, the government changed the law, making it easier for senior political aides to avoid public scrutiny regarding their contacts with the lobby industry. These warrants name high-profile lobbyists with connections to the Liberal Party.

My question to the Premier: can the Premier assure British Columbians that the lobbyists named in these warrants don't still have access to this government?

Hon. W. Oppal: The rules are clear. While the Leader of the Opposition may not agree with the rules, the rules are clear that while these matters are before the courts, we do not comment on them.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

The Liberals knew enough about these charges being laid that it fired two high-level political staffers. The government also knew early on that the affair included the conduct of Pilothouse Public Affairs Group.

The raids on the Legislature took place in December '03, yet the Liberal Party continued to accept money from the lobbying firm it knew was part of an RCMP investigation.

My question is to the Premier. Can the Premier explain why the Liberal Party accepted over $4,000 from Pilothouse Public Affairs Group in 2004 after the raids on the Legislature?

Hon. W. Oppal: I can think of no clearer example as to why we have this rule. We have a number of people before the courts who are charged. They're charged with a number of serious offences. It would be totally improper for anyone in this House to comment on the nature of the evidence and the nature of the allegations.

[1435]

LOBBYISTS REGISTRATION LEGISLATION

M. Farnworth: Let's talk about something that's not before the courts, and that is the Lobbyists Registration Act —

an act passed by this chamber. Prior to 2003 the

[ Page 3594 ]

act was quite specific. Ministerial aides could have been listed if the minister was lobbied. After the changes that were made in 2003, only the minister would be listed as having been lobbied — not staff or any aides or anybody else. Will the Attorney General commit to this House to restore the pre-2003 language to the Lobbyists Registration Act?

Hon. W. Oppal: If the member has allegations to make, then he ought to make those allegations. The question is the same; the answer is the same.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: I think the Attorney General needs to differentiate between what's before the courts and the question that we're asking, which is about a piece of legislation that was passed in this chamber. We're talking about the Lobbyists Registration Act. I'm not talking about allegations or a court case. I'm talking about a specific piece of legislation. There are problems with that piece of legislation. Sometimes lobbyists register; sometimes lobbyists don't register. Sometimes they're on time; sometimes they're late. We need to change this.

My question to the Attorney General is this. Will he commit to refer the Lobbyists Registration Act to an all-party standing committee of this House for review and recommendations?

Hon. W. Oppal: The government is committed to being the most open and accountable government. The creation of a lobbyist registry was based on two other government registries and tailored for this province. As with any other program, we routinely conduct opinions, and we routinely ask for opinions. If there is a change to be made, we're always amenable to make the legislation more transparent, more accountable and more democratic.

J. Kwan: My question is to the Premier. Will the Premier commit today — because this is a matter that impacts all members of this House and is of great import, I think, for all British Columbians — to refer the Lobbyists Registration Act to an all-party committee in this House?

Hon. W. Oppal: If there are any persons who have violated the provisions of the act and the legislation, then it surely is the duty of the person who makes the allegations to lay appropriate complaints.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: The answer that the Attorney General provided does not actually relate to the matter that I have raised.

My question to the Premier is this. This is an issue about accountability and openness. The Attorney General says he is amenable. So will the Premier commit today to refer the Lobbyists Act to an all-party committee so that we can ensure there's public transparency and accountability in terms of lobbying of cabinet ministers? Will the Premier commit to that today?

Hon. W. Oppal: As the member well knows, there is a registration process under the statute, and there is a registry that's maintained through the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. Any changes that could be done should be done in consultation with that office. In any event, if there are any breaches of protocol or legislation, then surely that's a matter for the member to bring up and complain.

[1440]

L. Krog: It is important to the people of British Columbia that they be satisfied that government is conducted in an open and transparent way. The Lobbyists Act is an important tool to assure British Columbians that government is behaving in an appropriate and transparent way. It is vitally important that that act be referred to an all-party committee of the Legislature.

Again I ask the Premier, as has been asked of him today already in this House: will he commit to referring the Lobbyists Act to an all-party committee of this Legislature?

Hon. W. Oppal: I want to remind the member opposite that it was this government that proclaimed that act. We brought that act into effect. The government is committed to being open and accountable and transparent. That's the objective of the legislation.

If there are weaknesses in the legislation, we're prepared to listen to them. We're prepared to revise the law if there are weaknesses in it. We haven't received any comments about any perceived or alleged weaknesses to that legislation.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Nanaimo has a supplemental.

L. Krog: I just heard the Attorney General commit to this House that he is prepared to listen. There is no question that that unprecedented raid on the Legislative Assembly over two years ago has seriously impaired British Columbians' confidence in the government. So I repeat my question again to the Premier. In light of these circumstances, in light of the fact that his Attorney General is prepared to listen, will he now commit to referring the Lobbyists Act to an all-party committee of this Legislature?

Hon. W. Oppal: We are always prepared to listen to any issues and any evidence or any suggestions that will improve transparency and accountability. The fact is that the member draws a bow between what is going on in the courts now and this legislation. Again, I would remind the member — who is a lawyer and knows — that it's improper for me to comment on any

[ Page 3595 ]

relationship he draws or any correlation between what is going on in a courtroom now and this legislation.

CHANGES TO FIRE COMMISSIONER OFFICE

N. Macdonald: In the 1980s the office of the fire commissioner was decentralized to recognize the nature of their work around the province. Training, reporting, fire investigation and fire inspection were available in every region of the province. Fire chiefs in the Kootenays have been clear to me that this grass-roots approach was something they appreciated and felt worked.

This government has moved practically everything in the office of the fire commissioner to Victoria. There are only four outside of Victoria to support 390 volunteer and professional fire departments.

My question is to the Solicitor General and the Minister of Public Safety. Who made the decision to centralize the office of the fire commissioner to Victoria, and what is the rationale?

Hon. J. Les: I appreciate the question from the member opposite. First of all, I should say that we are fortunate in British Columbia that we have some 400 fire departments that keep our communities safe.

The vast majority of the people who are part of these fire departments work on either a volunteer or a paid on-call basis. Those people are all supported by the office of the fire commissioner, which is an important office that supports the various fire departments across the country in the important aspects of training, information-sharing and investigation support. The reorganization that is going on will, in fact, ensure that fire safety officers will be available in more communities across the province and will centralize the administrative function of that office so that there will be an elimination of administrative duplication.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: That explanation sounds innocuous and reasonable enough. The difficulty I have with it is this. In my area the people that are responsible for providing that service are the fire chiefs — many of them volunteers, as the minister has said.

[1445]

When I speak to the fire chief in Revelstoke, he thinks the reorganization is a poor idea. When I speak to the fire chief in Golden, he thinks the reorganization is a poor idea. When I speak to the volunteer fire chief in Nicholson, the volunteer fire chiefs in Edgewater, Radium, Invermere, Windermere, Canal Flats, Kimberley…. Every single one of my fire chiefs thinks the reorganization is a poor idea.

So the question I have for the minister: given that, why does he continue to have confidence in a plan that nobody on the ground feels is a good plan? And will he commit today to reconsider that plan and listen to the people who are actually doing the work in the field?

Hon. J. Les: First of all, I want to assure the member that the reorganization of the office of the fire commissioner is, in fact, going to provide more fire safety officers in more locations across the province. We think that is a good idea.

If the member wants to talk about resources — and I think he referred fondly to the 1980s — I think, as a matter of fact, in the 1980s the fire commissioner's office was well resourced and well deployed across the province. But unfortunately, the 1990s happened. It was during the 1990s that the office of the fire commissioner was reduced from 40 people down to 27, and its budget was cut by 20 percent.

C. Evans: The effects of climate change tend to be visited on people in the interior, and one of the effects is wildfire and the risk of wildfire. We've seen relatively catastrophic events in Kelowna and North Thompson and a narrowly missed major catastrophe in Cranbrook.

The office of the provincial fire commissioner employees, who used to work in the interior, used to serve a coordination role in assisting rural fire teams and volunteers to coordinate their work in a rational manner with those of urban fire crews and the Forest Service.

My question is for the Solicitor General. Now that the hon. minister responsible for evisceration of the fire commissioner's office has reduced the rural fire commissioner's staff from 16 to four and has changed their titles from commissioners to advisers, I wonder if it is the intention of the minister to also devolve the obligation and the liability for coordinating fire crews, in the event of wildfire, to the volunteers themselves, to the municipalities closest to the fire, to the Forest Service or the RCMP — or just whom.

Hon. J. Les: As a result of the reorganization of the fire commissioner's office, the fire commissioner will in fact be in a better position to support local fire departments across the province. That is in terms of the day-to-day activities of the various fire departments and certainly in the case of emergent conditions such as wildfires.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nelson-Creston has a supplemental.

C. Evans: It's rare that we see such a monumental disconnect between the experience of people on the land and a minister down here in the pointy buildings. There are really two possibilities. One is that the staff that works for the hon. minister is telling him a different story than people are experiencing on the land, and the second is that the minister might be confused. I negate the possibility utterly that the minister would give us information that wasn't true.

If, however, we are going to eliminate training from rural communities…. In 2004 there were 30 opportunities to train volunteers all over the interior of British Columbia. Last year there were four. If we're going to

[ Page 3596 ]

take away the opportunity for the province to train volunteer firefighters, will it be replaced by municipalities, or will volunteers have to pay for it themselves? Then, hon. minister, if there are mistakes made, will the liability rest on the private firefighters, on the municipality or on the local regional district? Where exactly will that liability rest now that it is being abandoned by the Solicitor General?

[1450]

Hon. J. Les: Well, I think the member is involved in a bunch of rhetoric, frankly, that is akin to fearmongering. The fire commissioner's office is going to continue to supply that important supportive role to the fire departments across the province, which includes training support, investigative support and the supply of information.

The people that work in the fire commissioner's office are all professionals. I am very proud of the work they do, as I am proud of all of the people who work in the various fire departments across the province. I think for that member to indicate that the support of the fire commissioner's office is being in any way diminished is flat wrong.

COPEMAN CLINIC INVESTIGATION

D. Cubberley: Recently the Minister of Health referred the Copeman clinic to the Medical Services Commission. An MSC decision to allow the clinic's annual fees for preferred access would create a how-to manual for every GP to start charging user fees.

It's an important decision. Has the minister now given direction to his ministry to present arguments against the Copeman clinic model to the Medical Services Commission?

Hon. G. Abbott: It appears the member is nursing some misapprehensions about how this particular statute works. They should be more familiar with the Medicare Protection Act; they were the government that put it in place. They were the government that put this in as the mechanism to resolve issues like the Copeman Centre through the Medical Services Commission. The commission is independent, professional, unbiased and very thorough in the work they do. I hope the member is not asking me to interfere in that work in any way.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Saanich South has a supplemental.

BILLING PRACTICES OF

SURGICAL CLINIC IN ABBOTSFORD

D. Cubberley: I know the commission is independent. It's also true that it's been ten months, and the commission has not involved itself in the matter until the minister expressly asked it to, so its independence only began at that point.

Last week the Blaylock surgical centre, which is a new clinic in Abbotsford, announced it would be opening its doors. By its own admission, this clinic will be charging patients for quick access to surgery and will also be billing MSP for those surgeries that are insured under the plan. That's double-billing, and it's forbidden by the Medicare Protection Act. Will the minister assure the House that he has communicated clearly to the Blaylock surgical centre that it is going to be breaking the law?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member appears to have a fundamental misunderstanding with respect to how boards or commissions like the Medical Services Commission operate. It is always independent. It doesn't become independent at the moment that the ministry or the minister or anyone asks them to look into a matter. They are independent at all times. They are also capable, under their legislation…. They have the authority to look into the issue that they have been asked to address. They will do so in a thorough, professional, unbiased, independent and comprehensive way.

If the member is raising questions about Blaylock or other, I would be pleased to receive whatever information the member has with respect to that. I am not as familiar as I'm sure I will be with the Blaylock clinic. I'm glad to receive information and give some assessment to it, but I won't form my conclusions until I see that material.

LOBBYISTS REGISTRATION LEGISLATION

J. Horgan: My question is for the Attorney General.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: My question, then, would be for the Premier.

The Premier has had an opportunity to listen to discussion. He's had an opportunity to reflect on the points being made on this side of the House. I'm certain he's aware of the lack of confidence that the public is demonstrating in the Lobbyists Registration Act. I ask the Premier: will he commit to put that piece of legislation to an all-party committee?

[1455]

Hon. M. de Jong: I understand the politics at play here. The member is endeavouring to — improperly, in my view — link two totally different issues. You know, this is the government that introduced lobbyists registration legislation, and we're darn proud of it. This is the government that said we were going to conduct the business of public affairs in an open and transparent way, and that's what we've done.

When people genuinely come before us with suggestions about how to make that legislation better, we'll listen. But we're not going to listen to people who are trying to make political mileage in a very inappropriate way in this House today.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca has a supplemental.

[ Page 3597 ]

J. Horgan: Far be it from the Minister of Labour to take politics and put it in front of an interesting public policy question.

Again, I pose my question to the Premier. The Premier has had an opportunity to reflect on the comments from this side of the House. He's had a couple of years to reflect on the amendments that were made to the act to protect the ministerial aides from oversight. Will the Premier recognize that this is a significant public issue requiring his immediate attention and put this bill to the all-party committee, so that the public can have confidence that the transparency that he preaches is a reality, not a myth?

Hon. G. Campbell: The opposition wants an opportunity to debate the Lobbyists Registration Act. They had that opportunity. That opportunity was done in this House previously. We talked about that opportunity. The NDP did not oppose the bill. They didn't oppose it in second reading; they didn't oppose it in the third reading. The NDP was there with us as we provided a lobbyists legislation act for all British Columbians, which was independent. Complaints could be made through the freedom-of-information commissioner. All of that is still available. They did not speak against the relevant section, which is

section 28, in committee. It was approved without dissent.

In British Columbia we have a Lobbyists Registration Act, which is there to protect the public. We have a freedom-of-information commissioner, who is there to receive complaints. If the opposition has suggestions for how that act can be improved, they can submit them to the Attorney General for his consideration.

B. Simpson: I would remind the Premier that the two-member opposition, which he did not recognize as an official opposition, worked very hard to keep this government's feet to the fire during the term that they were in office.

However, legislation, when it's passed, is for a specific time, and it does not mean that we cannot learn from circumstances such as we've had to date. So my question again is to the Premier. Given that there's a lesson to be learned here, given that we now have a more robust and stronger opposition, will the Premier commit today to engage both sides…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

B. Simpson: …in a review of that legislation, in light of lessons learned? Will he commit today to an all-party review of that legislation?

Hon. G. Campbell: I don't think the member opposite should belittle the work that was done by previous New Democrat MLAs in this House. I can tell you they did an awful lot better job than he's doing.

As I've said to the opposition, the Lobbyists Registration Act was introduced using other models that had been in place to protect the public interest in British Columbia. It remains there. Should the members of the opposition have some constructive suggestions on how that can be improved, I would recommend that they submit them to the Attorney General.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member for Cariboo North has a supplemental.

[1500]

B. Simpson: I guess my question is very explicit. Why wouldn't the government include political aides in the lobbyists registry? That's an examination that could be undertaken by an all-party committee. Again to the Premier. There are lessons to be learned here; there are adjustments that can be made. Will the Premier commit to allow us to make them together, because that is, in fact, a constructive suggestion that we're making today?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Campbell: The bill that was introduced in the House dealt specifically with ministers and MLAs. As I've said earlier, if the opposition has some recommendations on how they might be able to improve the bill, they should submit them to the Attorney General.

More importantly, there is an underlying innuendo of allegation here. If there are allegations to be made, there is an avenue that those allegations can be made through — to the freedom-of-information commissioner. The important thing was that this was to be kept at arm's length from the political interference. The freedom-of-information commissioner is there at the service of the opposition and the public in British Columbia. If they've got allegations, I would suggest they make them. If they have constructive comments, more importantly, I would suggest they submit them to the Attorney General.

[End of question period.]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, there are still members that have the floor.

Petitions

D. Routley: I have a petition to submit from constituents regarding meat-processing regulations and the impact they are having on their businesses and livelihoods.

J. Horgan: I, too, have a petition, signed by 204 residents of the Cowichan Valley expressing to this

[ Page 3598 ]

Legislature their concern about food security and the impact of meat-processing regulations.

K. Conroy: I actually have two petitions to present. One is a carry-on of the petition I presented last week — 121 more signatures to that petition, which now brings it to 4,054.

The other petition is actually from constituents throughout West Kootenay–Boundary, Kelowna and the Okanagan area also expressing concerns about the IHA. There are 805 signatures to that petition.

M. Farnworth: I table a petition with over 1,000 signatures collected in my riding of Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain. These people signing this petition are requesting that the Ministry of Health provide a lot more funding — more adequate funding — for long-term care beds.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we'll be discussing the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands in Committee A and continuing with the estimates of the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation in this chamber.

[1505]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

ABORIGINAL RELATIONS

AND RECONCILIATION

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); S. Hawkins in the chair.

The committee met at 3:06 p.m.

On Vote 10: ministry operations, $28,778,000 (continued).

S. Fraser: Welcome to the minister and his staff again. I think we're scheduled to try to finish up this evening. Luckily it's a late sitting. I have a number of MLAs who will be having some specific questions that I think I'll be trying to allow in as soon as possible. I would like to, if I could, maybe switch gears from where we were last week and just deal with a few specific issues, some in my constituency — so I would be speaking as an MLA — and others outside of the constituency that have come to my attention as critic for the ministry.

The ministry, I know, was involved in the last sitting…. We were dealing with issues in Ahousat, dealing with some of the suicide attempts that were happening there. It was a tragic situation, and there's been some progress made in that regard. I thank the minister and the ministry for acknowledging that and helping to deal with some of that. I know they were supportive of getting some funding in place to try to deal with the crisis situation that was occurring there. There were some 60 attempts during the year in a population of 800. Definitely, the assistance was much needed, so thank you for that.

The issue is ongoing, and I know the Ministry of Children and Family Development has announced some further initiatives in that regard and specifically cited Ahousat. I just got that information today. Can the minister…? Does he have any further information or details on what that will mean for Ahousat — to remediate some of the situations that have led to these suicide attempts?

Interjections.

The Chair: Members, if I could just ask you to keep your conversations down. It's difficult to hear across the House for the members and the minister who are speaking.

Hon. T. Christensen: I appreciate the member's question. I think all of us in this House can agree that there's really nothing more tragic than suicide, particularly when it involves youth. As the member has identified, there have been some challenges there in respect of the community of Ahousat. As the member rightly identified, the Ministry of Children and Family Development has been involved there; the Vancouver Island Health Authority has, through the Ministry of Health.

Unfortunately, I don't have specifics to answer the member's question. The Ministry of Aborignal Relations and Reconciliation plays more of a support role, a coordination role if asked. But the direct services are provided by those other two line ministries, particularly the Ministry of Children and Family Development, and the member would be best to ask any specifics of that ministry.

[1510]

I can tell the member that certainly we all eagerly await the child and youth officer's report in respect of youth suicide within the aboriginal community so that we have an opportunity to learn what more we might undertake to ensure that we are addressing those very tragic situations and to ensure that it stops.

But looking at the larger picture in Ahousat, for instance, when we get a situation where there is that level of suicide attempts, there seems to be an underlying problem of a lack of hope for people, for that number of youth, especially — not all youth, but for that number of people — to make that ultimate tragic action. Besides the issues of bringing remedial action and trying to deal with a symptom, there are the larger

[ Page 3599 ]

issues around…. I'm sure that's what the new relationship is about and the implementation of Bill 11 and the trust that goes with it. I appreciate that.

But specifically with Ahousat, I met with the chief and councillors last week regarding some of their challenges, and they are, I think rightly so, trying to address some ground-level issues. The area needs housing, and they're working with…. I know with the federal government they've been trying to get through some of the red tape on acquiring land. District lot 363 has been in the works from Weyerhaeuser — the transfer of that land — for a long time.

This is largely a federal issue, but I did offer any support I could give, whether it's letters of support or any lobbying efforts I might do as an opposition critic. Is there a role that the minister might be able to play? Would he be willing to meet with the chief and council to try to see if there's some assistance that he can bring as a ministry towards bringing some fruition to this land transfer issue, for instance? It would be a great help to the community and, I think, go a long way towards healing some of that lack of hope for the community.

Hon. T. Christensen: Certainly, I appreciate the member's…. What I think I heard was an acknowledgment that the response to issues of suicide in first nations communities is a complex issue and that "multifaceted" is an understatement. I think the member has rightly identified that to truly address some of those challenges is unfortunately a long-term prospect in the sense that we have to provide a better foundation for hope in many of those communities. It really does take a comprehensive community response at the very local community and the broader provincial and federal communities so that we're seeing first nations see hope in looking to their future.

[1515]

Ultimately, that's what the new relationship is about. It's fundamentally what the transformative change accord that we signed between the province and the federal government and the leadership council last November is about, where we're looking at: how do we find hope in looking for educational opportunities for aboriginal people? How do we make improvements in health outcomes? How do we address the challenges around housing? How do we look for economic opportunity, and how do we assist first nations in pursuing economic opportunities so that they see that beacon of hope as they look to the future?

The member asked specifically in terms of additions to reserve lands and some of the process involved there. The member is correct that that is within the jurisdiction of the federal government. I certainly don't profess expertise in that process, but my understanding is that often there's a significant degree of consultation with local and regional governments — certainly with the provincial government, if it is provincial Crown land. I can tell the member that the province tries to be supportive of those applications, but ultimately it is within the purview of the federal government to move that process along and make decisions around additions to reserve land.

S. Fraser: Thank you to the minister for that. Would it be acceptable, as the lead ministry in the new relationship and aboriginal relations and reconciliation, to ask that if the chief and council were seeking assistance from the minister and the ministry, they would be able to maybe arrange a meeting to deal with…? They've done a lot of work. I have a fairly lengthy and actually very complete interim report on the issues around trying to acquire this land.

There may or may not be a role for the ministry to play provincially here, but there's certainly at least a role in the sense that there's a request for assistance to try to get through a system. There's been acknowledgment by the ministry that there are capacity issues that have made it particularly challenging as far as having the resources to deal with some of this stuff at the federal level. Your advice as minister and your ministry staff may be able to advise chief and council on how to maybe get through this a little easier.

Would it be acceptable that I suggest to them that they could meet with the minister at some point and/or your staff to help advise on this regard?

Hon. T. Christensen: Certainly I would encourage the member's constituents to send the information to us so that we can review it and determine what, if any, role there is for the province to play in moving the matter forward and assisting the federal government in making a decision.

One of the challenges the member may recognize in respect of this particular area of public policy is that there is a shared jurisdiction in many respects between the province and the federal government. While the province has a critical role to play and is very much interested in assisting first nations in realizing economic opportunity, what we need to ensure we are doing is, to the best of our ability, working together with first nations as well as the federal government to move those common objectives forward. I very much see our role as being one to move those common objectives forward.

[1520]

S. Fraser: Hon. Chair, I jumped the gun. I thank the minister for that. I will pass on that information to Chief Atleo and let him know that the information can go forward to the ministry and that, hopefully, they could advise on how best to proceed if there are particular problems that I don't have the expertise on, which maybe your staff would be able to help with.

Still dealing with some issues in Ahousat, which is the largest first nations community in my constituency, there are some particularly difficult situations that are not unique to remote first nations communities. In Ahousat, Chief Atleo also pointed out an issue around a little ten-year-old girl who was born with Usher syndrome. I was unfamiliar with the syndrome. I raised it with the Minister of Children and Family Development who acknowledged that there is a problem — not just

[ Page 3600 ]

in the province, but across the country. Sometimes there's a disconnect between the provincial and federal governments as far as children on reserve with disabilities that need specific help. Yet, because they're on reserve, it is often designated a federal issue. But because of grey areas, it often gets shifted back to the province, and it ends up that the children with the disabilities are the ones that suffer.

In this case there are people with intervener status at the school that have made some significant reports on the needs for this child that are not being met and the needs for the community and the family involved that are not being met. They're running into a stone wall on this. This, again, is not unique. What I was hoping is that the minister and the ministry could play some sort of a role here in trying to at least acknowledge a problem and trying to work towards finding a solution to filling in these gaps so the children are not at risk here.

If I may, I've been working with the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada. They've been doing a huge amount of work on this, and I've been at some meetings in the province. There are significant problems provincially where, because of this confusion of jurisdiction, we're seeing children with disabilities on reserve not getting the resources they need or not having the ability to go home to be with their families.

There's a definite disconnect, and it's a constitutional one. There was a little boy that had a…. Jordan is the name of the principle: Jordan's Principle. The Caring Society has a principle which I think is relevant to the ministry and that should be considered as the ministry makes decisions around the needs of communities in trying to address the disparity that exists in aboriginal communities. It's a very short statement, but it's very powerful.

It says: "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and benefit under the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability."

This is reaffirmed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, yet these disparities exist. You know, provincial governments — whoever they may be, or whatever political stripes — can't just say, "Well, it's not our responsibility; it's a federal responsibility," because the children then suffer. It's the responsibility of any provincial government to protect the children in the province. If it's a loophole that means they're not getting that protection or those services, that should be closed.

If it's still not legally the responsibility of the province, if it's a federal responsibility, I believe the province should step forward and take this one head-on and make sure the children aren't the ones to suffer, and then they deal with the federal government on this issue.

Would the minister care to comment? Is there any role for the ministry to play in trying to maybe help the Ministry of Children and Family Development try to deal with this disparity? I will work as an opposition critic in a non-partisan way to try to help in any way I can, too, but it is a real issue, and children are the ones who are suffering.

[1525]

Hon. T. Christensen: I thank the member for his question. I'm not going to comment on the specifics of two very specific cases the member referred to because I don't have enough background information to know exactly what's going on there.

What I can tell the member is this: my experience is that there is a general recognition that the historic sort of retreat into a jurisdictional argument is wholly unacceptable and in no way serves first nations and aboriginal people well. There's a recognition of that fact at the provincial level, and my experience is that there is a recognition of that fact at the federal level.

What we have seen from the first ministers meeting, the transformative change accord, and certainly in the context of the new relationship, is that we are all committed to trying to break through those jurisdictional barriers and focus on the people that we all serve. Whether we're a first nations leader, whether we're a provincial leader, whether we're a federal leader, we actually have people that require services, and we have to focus on ensuring they get to those services.

Now, as the member will recognize, that's easy for me to stand up here and say. It's difficult to get it into effect on the ground. But there is a commitment across government, within the Ministry of Children and Family Development, within the Ministry of Health, as coordinated by Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, to be working, primarily through the leadership council, to better engage the federal government, and Health Canada in particular, to say: "You know what? It doesn't matter whether you're on reserve or off reserve; you're entitled to the same basket of services in the province, and we better collectively as governments ensure that you're getting those services."

That is much of the discussion that is evolving from the first ministers meeting, and I'm optimistic and will continue to work towards breaking down those jurisdictional barriers that the member refers to. Certainly, I welcome the member's continued input where he sees those barriers arising so that we can try and tackle them head-on.

S. Fraser: Thank you to the minister for that. I very much appreciate it, and I will be forwarding you that specific case from Ahousat again. I'll be contacting the chief and council and letting them know that your office is being apprised of the situation and is willing to look at finding a solution there.

I hear what the minister's saying, and I think there has to be a lot more push. The acknowledgment was already there in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and it still didn't turn into action. There were still children suffering, and there are hundreds across, especially, western Canada that are still falling through the cracks there. Much work needs to be done, and I appreciate the minister's statements in this regard.

[ Page 3601 ]

Switching gears a little bit; just some local issues again. The road to Huu-ay-aht–Bamfield. We have a significant first nations community; we have a significant non-aboriginal community. I'm talking access. I'll raise this in the Transportation estimates too. However, I need to ask questions about how the ministry can play a role or not in issues around critical access to first nations communities. In this case, I'll just keep it regarding first nations communities.

There have been a lot of incidents across the province now of, basically, logging roads having very serious accidents on them because of the level of maintenance or the level that they've been developed at. This is a community…. This is a lifeline. This is where children from that community use this road to take long journeys just to get education, which is, of course, something we all hold near and dear, and it's part of the five great goals.

When I try to deal with the issue of that road not being up to public standards, the response I get from the ministry — again, I'm not asking you to comment on this, because I'll deal with that in those estimates — is that it's actually a private logging road. The way the contract is laid out is it only has to be kept to a standard that's acceptable for industry. There is public money, though, going towards that, but it seems to specifically not accommodate the public needs.

I do not fault this government on such contracts. It could be oversight. It could have been another government. I don't even know that. However, what I do know is that the situation has got way worse in the last couple of years. The road is scary to drive on, and I made a point of doing it myself in the relatively good times. This road is not kept up to any standard that a regular car can drive on. I shudder to think that school children have to travel on it and high school students have to travel on this on a regular basis.

[1530]

I do not believe this is in keeping with the new relationship at any level, because I think it could unduly affect the safety of the students involved. So it's an issue that I don't have an answer for. But is there a role, as this ministry and this minister take the lead on the new relationship, which is about a new relationship trying to address some of these problems that have maybe not been addressed over the last few years…? Can this ministry take some sort of a role here, either in an educational role with another minister, another ministry, or to influence remedying the situation or at least improving it to make it more acceptable for first nations and non?

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

Hon. T. Christensen: I thank the member for raising the question. As the member rightly points out, this is by no means a new issue. It is one that first nations communities around the province have struggled with for a number of years — many, many years in some cases.

Certainly, in respect of specific examples, I would encourage the member to raise those with the ministers responsible for the specific roads, which in some cases will be the Minister of Forests and Range and in some cases will be the Minister of Transportation.

The member raises the issue in the context of the new relationship, and what I can tell the member is that the new relationship has actually provided us a mechanism, a vehicle to start and identify what some of these issues are, whether they're issues that are impacting many first nations communities, or one community but with a very significant impact. It gives us a bit of a forum to try and bring issues that may have a cross-government relevance to the fore so that we can start and figure out how we address those things.

It is not something that we can address overnight or sort of dictate on the fly a policy of how you are going to address it, but as the member rightly recognizes, there are issues in terms of transportation links to first nations communities, and it is something that there does need to be considerably more work around.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. The minister's right. I believe that there are so many cross-jurisdictions in dealing with the new relationship….

Whereas this may be a Ministry of Transportation main issue or Ministry of Forests and Range, it's also Education, because this is a critical link in the education system for the children and the students on the reserve and in the community of Bamfield.

Considering the five great goals, it is germane to this ministry. I don't expect any miracles here, but I will hold the minister to acknowledging the problem and that there is an interministerial link here to deal with the problems. I will probably be raising that to your colleague when we go up to Transportation very soon. I have already been through the Ministry of Education, so I have touched on that there also.

On another specific issue, the Tseycum Coast Salish have been involved in a repatriation, I'm sure you're aware, of the ancestral remains. They're having some significant international challenges trying to get back some of the ancestral remains, which are, of course, very important, very significant culturally and spiritually. They have been asking for help, and it has certainly been getting press.

[1535]

They have been having to deal with, I think, Chicago and New York. There are significant ancestral remains that are spread out in areas that they're trying to get repatriated. I'm wondering what role the minister can play here. There are significant costs associated with this sort of thing, and there's certainly an administrative cost in trying to deal with the levels of bureaucracy involved with trying to get these important ancestral remains or artifacts, in some cases, returned as they should be. Has the ministry budgeted anything to deal with such issues, as in the Tseycum situation?

Hon. T. Christensen: The short answer to the member's question is that we don't have any current

[ Page 3602 ]

involvement or any particular expertise within the ministry in terms of assisting with the repatriation of remains or cultural or heritage artifacts. A number of first nations, as the member will know, have found success themselves in pursuing those paths, but the province hasn't played a significant role in that.

I can tell the member that in the context of the new relationship, certainly one of the primary discussions around the whole concept of reconciliation is what we can do further and how should we prioritize what we do around the celebration of first nations culture and heritage within the province. Certainly, in that context we're likely to have more discussion about issues of repatriation of remains as well as artifacts.

I can also tell the member that in the context of that discussion we'll always be limited somewhat in our ability to do everything that is asked. To date, as the member may know, we've been trying to focus some of our resources on really developing a plan as to how we can better celebrate aboriginal culture and heritage in the province. Part of that was some of the funding announced last Friday around the preservation of aboriginal languages.

We announced that an additional million dollars will be provided to the First Peoples Heritage, Language and Culture Council to assist them in the incredible work they've already been doing with first nations around the province in protecting, maintaining and, ideally, enhancing the knowledge of first nations language. That is a rich part of British Columbia's heritage and certainly one that we're interested in promoting and protecting.

[1540]

As with many things — I think, particularly, many things in the context of the new relationship — there is considerably more discussion that we need to have with first nations around how we set our priorities on what we can do and how we move forward with that. Certainly, that is a conversation and work still to be done.

S. Fraser: I agree with the minister's assessment. I believe the repatriation of ancestral remains is almost synonymous with the ministry's name: Relations and Reconciliation. Reconciliation would be about the repatriation of the ancestral remains. I think that's pretty much what the ministry's namesake is about — as in language too.

So it is not an isolated case. I know this came before the public and the ministry and the government prior to the budget, so I am disappointed. I know others are disappointed that there has not been any acknowledgment of that through the budget process, that there has not been anything tangible put on the table to try to deal with this. I do not believe it's reasonable to expect an individual, or a small first nation in this case, to be able to affect everything that's necessary to seek this return of the ancestral remains or artifacts.

Again, I note that the minister acknowledged this is an issue that is outstanding. Hopefully, it will be dealt with in a future budget. At the same time, I would ask the minister…. If a first nation — in this case, the Tseycum — has a formal request for help on this, and they have located the remains and opened a dialogue with where they're being held, surely there is a role in the interests of reconciliation to get these things back. Surely, since that is the name of this new ministry, the ministry has a role to play here this term, not maybe through next budget. Can the minister comment on that, please?

Hon. T. Christensen: The role that the member talks about is not one that the province has played in the past, and it's not one that we're currently budgeted for. We have had some limited involvement in terms of looking at the return of artifacts to first nations within the treaty process context. But those typically are artifacts in the care and control of the province, so we're in a good position to enter into agreements to protect those artifacts and return them to a particular first nation. In some cases there, we've also tried to assist in getting artifacts from outside the province.

[1545]

As we have embarked upon the new relationship and as we're working more closely with first nations, one of the challenges — and the member may be sympathetic to this — is that we find there is a great long list of things that we haven't done in the past, which we could do in the future. The challenge in that is that you have to start setting your priorities, in terms of where new investments are going to be made and the work that's going to be done.

We are trying to set those priorities, together with the First Nations Leadership Council, in the context of the discussions we're having around the new relationship. Some of that priority-setting certainly is what resulted in the establishment of the New Relationship fund and the allocation of $100 million to build capacity within first nations communities.

What the new relationship does is provide us a forum to discuss the issues that are critical to first nations, and in the context of that forum, quite frankly, I think we all recognize that we need to set some priorities. We're working closely and need to work more closely with first nations in terms of setting…. You know, what are the most critical priorities for first nations as we move ahead in evolving this relationship, rather than the province deciding unilaterally what the priorities should be?

As I say, that's the type of process that led to establishment of the need to build capacity. I can tell the member that as we continue to do the work with the leadership council and continue to hear from first nations more generally around issues of reconciliation — around pursuit of the matters that have been identified specifically by the leadership council and led to the transformative change accord, so around the need to improve health outcomes, education outcomes, housing, economic opportunities and to build better relationships — we're going to be listening very intently to what first nations tell us should be the priorities in doing that.

[ Page 3603 ]

S. Fraser: Thank you for that, minister. I very much respect and acknowledge the leadership council in the role they've played here. They've been a wonderful example to all British Columbians in cooperation and leadership.

Having said that, there are individual first nations where the Chief and council will come to, I would assume, and can still access the ministry and the minister, because the government-to-government relationship…. An elected Chief councillor and council certainly represent an individual first nation. That isn't being lost in this process, is it?

Hon. T. Christensen: That relationship is not being lost at all. I guess what I should have made more clear in my previous answer — given the specifics of the member's question around repatriation of remains — is that if a first nation approaches us looking for assistance in repatriating remains or other artifacts, we don't currently have a program or a funding pool in place to assist with that. We're not in a position to deal with those requests on an individual, case-by-case basis.

If that is identified as a priority in our discussions with first nations generally, I think we need to be working with the leadership council to identify how we develop a policy framework around that, as we do on a number of fronts where it's first nations that are most directly impacted. And in developing those policy frameworks, part of that exercise with the leadership council will be: how do we set the priorities in terms of what first nations would like to see evolve in our relationship between the Crown and first nations?

As the member will recognize — and this isn't unique to first nations or any other group in society — there are always limits to being able to do everything. We need to be able to establish priorities in terms of how available funding is going to be allocated. What I'm suggesting is that in doing that, when it's funding that directly assists first nations, we should actually engage them in setting those priorities.

[1550]

S. Fraser: Thank you, minister, for that. The repatriation of artifacts and ancestral remains has been an issue for a long time. So with a new relationship, that is an outstanding issue that I believe has to be addressed, as does the language issue. The government has chosen to start working in that regard. Both those issues have been on the table for a long time. One was picked, and the other one has not been dealt with so far. I believe that's a lacking that needs to be corrected, certainly, through consultation with the leadership council and also with individual nations. I hope that will be rectified in the interests of reconciliation.

If we could touch on that, just following a little trail here…. The $1 million that was announced at the First Citizens Forum towards education — where is that budgeted from?

Hon. T. Christensen: That $1 million is from the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation's '05-06 budget.

S. Fraser: Every year there is $600,000 for projects that is already allotted directly towards aboriginal languages. Is this in addition to that, or is it an extra $400,000 to bring it up to a million?

Hon. T. Christensen: We provide $1 million each year to the First Peoples Heritage, Language and Culture Council, of which $600,000 goes specifically towards language programs. This $1 million announced on Friday is in addition to that $600,000. It is all additional money available to the council for language preservation.

S. Fraser: That will be administered through the First Peoples Heritage, Language and Culture Council?

Hon. T. Christensen: Yes.

S. Fraser: I'll switch gears here a little bit. As far as I can tell, slightly over half of the budget is going towards treaty. Am I in the ballpark there?

Hon. T. Christensen: The member is correct. Certainly, well over half of the ministry's overall budget is dedicated towards negotiations. That's not just limited to treaty; it's broadly negotiations.

S. Fraser: Would that portion also include Douglas treaty negotiations?

[1555]

Hon. T. Christensen: There aren't negotiations with a group of first nations who are, collectively, the Douglas treaty bands. There's not a set of negotiations in that context. There are, however, ongoing treaty negotiations with individual first nations who may also be a party to a Douglas treaty.

S. Fraser: There is the Douglas treaty initiative, which I certainly heard about when I was in the interior, and I know the ministry has been approached on that initiative. Is that included in the Douglas treaty negotiations of the various first nations that it's applicable to?

Hon. T. Christensen: The Douglas treaties are a group of treaties on lower Vancouver Island. I think I know what the member is referring to in terms of a reference to the interior. There are a series of specific claims that different first nations have put forward in the interior, which are primarily a claim in respect of the federal government. On some, on a case-by-case basis, the province is involved as well and is certainly prepared to be involved on a negotiation-type basis, but they're primarily within the purview of the federal government. Beyond the context of the B.C. Treaty Commission process and the first nations who have

[ Page 3604 ]

chosen to take advantage of the opportunity to negotiate treaties through the B.C. Treaty Commission, we're not involved in specific treaty negotiations.

I hope that's helpful to the member.

S. Fraser: It's the start of being helpful, but I'm being mindful of my colleagues. I'm going to hand the control on this one over to my colleague to my right. I'm just going to let him go for a little while. There are a number of different MLAs that have some questions, including one of your own, so far. We'll be trying to

schedule all of them in today, if that's all right. That doesn't leave me a whole lot of time.

H. Lali: I think my colleague from Port Alberni meant I was geographically to the right of him and not philosophically. And I'm certainly not to the right of the minister — let's put it this way — geographically or philosophically.

I want to ask the minister about poverty and unemployment on aboriginal reserves. I was wondering if the minister could elaborate in terms of what his ministry is doing in concrete terms to make sure that poverty and unemployment will be eliminated on reserve.

[1600]

You know, we hear the Liberal government across the way time after time brag about how great things are in British Columbia, how low the unemployment rate is and how there's a new era of prosperity in this country. But when you look across so much of British Columbia, especially rural British Columbia, people aren't feeling that. The latest Ipsos-Reid poll said 52 percent of the people are not feeling the effects of any of that — that obviously people in the upper-income levels are, but people in the lower- and middle-income levels are not.

When you look at aboriginal reserves…. I think on several occasions I have stated in this House that I have the greatest number of aboriginal bands and tribal councils of any constituency in the province. I have 27 distinct and separate bands. When you look across not just the first nations in my constituency but first nations all across this province, it's like they're living in a different world, because the unemployment rates are so high and poverty levels are so high.

I was wondering if the minister could elaborate on what specifically he or his ministry is doing or is prepared to do to make sure that people who live on reserves — aboriginal people in this province — are getting their fair share of the economic pie and on what specific programs he has put in place or, as the minister, is willing to put in place to make sure that those poverty and unemployment levels drop to the same standard as they are in the rest of British Columbia.

Hon. T. Christensen: I appreciate the member's question, because he identifies, quite frankly, the same thing we identified as one of the primary reasons for pursuing the new relationship with first nations. That is that when we look at the socioeconomic status of first nations across British Columbia relative to the rest of the population, there is a glaring and shameful gap that has been there for generation after generation, year after year, decade after decade, through governments of all political stripes. We need to find a way to close that gap.

Certainly, we welcome the members on that side of the House to participate with us in identifying how we close that gap. It's why we're working closely with the First Nations Leadership Council to find a better path forward where we're actually identifying what some of the solutions are. We're doing that together and listening to first nations when they identify some of the solutions.

There are things we can do in the short term, but I think the unfortunate reality is that this is going to take a number of years to truly close that gap in a meaningful and sustainable way. Part and parcel of that is certainly a focus on education, where we're working very hard. I think that if we look at some of the trends over the last ten years — and the last few years in particular — those are positive in terms of aboriginal student graduation rates from high school, aboriginal student participation rates in post-secondary education. The trends are good.

So those, over time, will help build economic capacity — which, again, is the foundation for providing sustainable employment in first nations communities, just like it is in non–first nations communities.

We're focused on looking for additional economic opportunities, looking at how first nations better participate in some of the opportunities that the bounty of natural resources provides in this province — whether that's in new opportunities in forestry, whether that's an ability to participate in new mining activity that might come on line. All of those are discussions that we're having in the context of the new relationship with the First Nations Leadership Council.

The Aboriginal Tourism Association has come forward with an aboriginal tourism strategy that we're working with them to develop a business plan around and to support.

[1605]

I think we need to look at where first nations have had particular success. Certainly, the member will be familiar with the Osoyoos Indian Band and some of the great success they've had on an economic front in terms of different projects within their territory, including the very successful Nk'Mip winery and golf course and other developments around that.

There's a real current and future opportunity, I think, in aboriginal tourism in many parts of the province. We're working with the Aboriginal Tourism Association to try and figure out how to develop that — not because we have all the expertise but rather because we want to listen to the people within the aboriginal community that have been successful and figure out how we assist that success in growing.

A critical part, and I would suggest the most important part, of the New Relationship fund that was established just last week — that $100 million fund — is to build the capacity within first nations communities that

[ Page 3605 ]

will enable those communities to have economic success, because it's that success that is going to alleviate the poverty that has been there year over year over year for far, far too long. We need to build that foundation to actually eliminate the poverty and unemployment that is all too pervasive on reserve. That's by way of introduction.

In terms of some specifics that the member had asked about, we have an aboriginal business and entrepreneurship skills training program that we've been funding to try and build capacity in that area. That's co-funded with Western Economic Diversification and the Ministry of Small Business and Revenue. That began in December of 2004. That provides a series of training sessions around entrepreneurship to try and engage the aboriginal community in those opportunities.

I can tell the member, actually, that I had the opportunity just a couple of weeks ago to attend an aboriginal youth entrepreneurship symposium in Vancouver that brought together aboriginal youth from across Canada. It was incredible — the energy and the optimism in that room looking forward. What we need to do is build on that and make sure that those individuals are taking their ideas back to their home communities and finding a way to build those opportunities in different places around the province.

Certainly through the first citizens fund, the ministry continues to provide some business development support in terms of a business loan program to provide loans to first nations businesses that are trying to get up and off the ground, and see those grow. There's the Native Economic Development Advisory Board that provides advice to government in terms of how to use the funding within the first citizens fund to better promote business development for first nations, both on and off reserve — again, to try and provide some of the foundation for providing future opportunities.

I think it's fair to say that the reality of trying to address that pervasive challenge of poverty and unemployment in first nations communities in many parts of the province is really a case of looking at the physical environment that surrounds that first nation and looking at opportunities for them to participate in economic opportunity that arises from that physical environment. It stems from connecting first nations to the Internet through expanding broadband connectivity, which we're doing, to ensure that they're better connected to the outside world and can take advantage of potential economic opportunities that flow from that. That's the one layer.

The other layer is the education piece, which is fundamental to being able to take advantage of the opportunities that might arise.

[1610]

H. Lali: The minister mentioned something in his answer about the New Relationship fund and capacity-building, and I'll defer that for a moment because I'm going to talk about it a little later.

In this instance I want to point the minister to a Stats Canada study that just came out in March 2006. It showed that of any province, child poverty is the highest in British Columbia. Depending on which figures you look at, it could be 20 percent or 25 percent. Let's take the case, if it's a lower figure, of around 20 percent. If you look at aboriginal reserves….

Now, that 20 percent means that child poverty in British Columbia is 41 percent above the Canadian average. If you go to a first nations reserve, you'll find that child poverty rates are even more than double that. In other words, they're more than 100 percent higher than they are in the Canadian average. The only province that even comes close to it is Newfoundland, which was once considered the poor child of Confederation. In British Columbia when you see those child poverty rates, they're even worse than they are in Newfoundland.

I want the minister to concentrate a little bit on, again…. I appreciate the answer that he gave me with the number of processes that are in place and am hoping that it'll bear fruit in the near future so that aboriginal people can get on with their lives and enjoy the same educational and employment opportunities as the rest of the population. Having said that, again, I point to not just the poverty and unemployment rates, in general, on reserve but, specifically, in terms of child poverty. They're the highest anywhere in Canada.

I would like to ask the minister…. When it comes to training and apprenticeships, obviously, the aboriginal people don't have those same opportunities. To begin with, aboriginal people start from — on the economic side of things — a base that is a lot lower than there is in mainstream British Columbia. So in order to put them onto the same level, what kind of programs, specifically, is this minister pushing for so that aboriginal people can compete on the same level? When you look at it, where…? Actually, I'll leave it at that and then come back and ask the subsequent question to the minister.

Basically, I'm looking for specifics from the minister as to what he is doing to convince his government to put in place some programs for training so that those who do not go on to a college or a university education at least have some training so they can get into the field of their choice and achieve some employment opportunities.

Hon. T. Christensen: I think the member has identified an area where there are huge opportunities out in front of aboriginal youth, in particular, as they look to the future and look at what their interests are and as we look at the sort of pending skills demand. There are just huge opportunities for increased participation of the aboriginal community in the employment force and the consequent advantages of that in reducing poverty and, certainly, reducing unemployment.

[1615]

In terms of specific initiatives around training and apprenticeship, obviously, aboriginal people are able to participate in the range of programs that are available to the general population, whether those are offered through the Industry Training Authority or our post-

[ Page 3606 ]

secondary institutions. Certainly, I know that's not what the member is specifically looking for.

There are a number of other programs that we're supportive of that, although they are available to the general population, find that the majority of their participants are aboriginal. An example of that would be the BladeRunners program that I know the member is aware of and very supportive of. I think we can all agree it has been a very strong program that is now being expanded from Vancouver to other regions as well. We found that aboriginal youth, in particular, benefit from that.

The B.C. Construction Association, in partnership with the Industry Training Authority, has had some considerable success in attracting aboriginal people into positions within the construction trades and in building their skills over time and some of them then pursuing apprenticeships. They're not big, flashy government programs, but they're on-the-ground programs that are actually bringing results as those skills are needed in the community.

There's also, certainly and fundamentally, the New Relationship fund and the reality that the fund — it's $100 million, as the member well knows — will provide significant tools to pursue a range of potential skills training opportunities for people in first nations right across the province. It is, at its very heart, a skills training tool, because that's what capacity-building is all about: gaining those skills.

Rather than government actually directing how exactly those dollars will be spent, that will be determined through this board of directors that controls the fund, the majority of whom are appointed by first nations. So they can identify where the critical skills needs are, where the demands are from within first nations communities, and decide where it is that they want to focus dollars to be allocated towards skills training and what types of skills training to build capacity that supports the sustainability of those communities.

I think, more than anything, that $100 million fund is going to be key to building the better future that I know the member seeks for the first nations that he represents and certainly the others around the province.

H. Lali: In a previous answer, the minister talked about opportunities in the mining and the forest industries as well. In this recent answer the minister said that aboriginal people can participate in the programs that are available. That's true. A significant number of aboriginal people do participate in these programs. I applaud the government on that.

But once they are involved in these training programs, in order to get a job in business or in the public sector, it's a different reality. Even when aboriginal people have the same qualifications as non-aboriginal people, and even in the instances where they're more qualified as well, those employment opportunities are still not there, because employers are not willing to hire aboriginal people when they're competing against those people who are non-aboriginal. I guess what I'm saying is that there's a lot of discrimination that takes place based on, basically, the differences of race.

It's shameful that it happens, but it happens all over British Columbia. It doesn't matter whether the employer is white, red, yellow or brown. That discrimination still takes place, and aboriginal people are denied those opportunities.

Now, the minister had said that there are opportunities in mining and also in forestry because of some of the processes that are already in place. Can the minister assure this House that in his dialogues with industry, mining and forestry, if it hasn't already happened…? Those industries provide decent, well-paying, family-supporting jobs. Those are the kinds of jobs that aboriginal people need to get out of the economic downward cycle that they're presently involved in.

[1620]

Can the minister assure this House, if it hasn't already been done, that he will sit down with those major industries and actually work with them to develop programs whereby aboriginal people can get access to those entry-level jobs — perhaps in numbers that are greater than their population, because right now they are very, very underrepresented, especially in mining — so that at some point in time the disparity will be levelled so aboriginal people can have those opportunities — both in terms of the workers' jobs in the forest and the mining industries as well as those entry-level jobs, and even perhaps in some of the management level jobs in both those industries?

Those are big industries, big sectors, in rural British Columbia.

My focus isn't just about rural British Columbia, but because I happen to live there, it's my duty to present that on behalf of rural British Columbians. What I would like to see, as I pointed out — and I need an assurance from the minister — is that he work with these big industries in mining and forestry to ensure that as new jobs become available, aboriginal people will get access to those — and also in management, so they can actually start being treated on the same level as they as they should be, as the mainstream community is.

Hon. T. Christensen: I appreciate the member's question. It's an easy one to answer. I can assure the member I will do exactly that, because it's exactly what I have been doing. More often than not, it's actually at the invitation of a number of industry associations, all of whom are expressing considerable support for the new relationship and emphasizing their desire to work more closely with first nations around the province.

We've seen exceptional leadership by the Association for Mineral Exploration. It used to be the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines; they changed their name just to confuse me. They've put out a guidebook to guide their members who are involved in mineral exploration as to how to better work with first nations around the province, including opportunities to train and hire members of first nations communities. It is an excellent guidebook, one that any industry would be

[ Page 3607 ]

wise to read and review. So they're being very proactive and looking for opportunities to work with first nations.

We've seen a similar approach by the B.C. Business Council that has been very supportive of the new relationship. Representatives of the council have met with the First Nations Leadership Council on a number of occasions to talk about how the business community can better support this new era in relations — between first nations and the government, certainly, but really first nations and everybody else in the province. We all are pursuing the same goal of ensuring that we close those gaps and that first nations and aboriginal people in the province have the same opportunities that all of us should have to take

part in economic developments in the province.

So while one part of it, as the member has rightfully mentioned, the opportunity to work at all levels within an organization — whether that's in the forest industry, the mining industry or in a tourism organization — is important in an employment context, what we also want to see, and are seeing, are companies that are controlled and owned by aboriginal people and first nations having the opportunity to participate in economic development.

[1625]

I mentioned earlier the opportunities to participate in economic development around forestry or mining. There we're talking about direct participation not necessarily as employees but, in fact, as the people who may control a business that is pursuing those opportunities. That's in the context of the new relationship, where we're looking at how a first nations community can be effectively involved in a mining project that they're interested in that's within their traditional territory. What are the avenues to potential involvement there?

When we look at forestry, how do we provide first nations effective access to fibre and some of the opportunities that arise when you have access to that fibre?

There are a host of things already happening, and I can assure the member 100 percent that in all the conversations I have, I am consistently looking for ways that we can better work with first nations to pursue those opportunities. In all the conversations I have with various members of different business associations and industry associations, the message I am hearing back very clearly is that they are looking for opportunities to better work with first nations and aboriginal people. It gives me a great sense of optimism for the future.

As the member will recognize, we must always be vigilant in looking for situations where discrimination arises and dealing with those effectively. My experience in the portfolio over the last number of months has been that there is just an incredible sense of goodwill and desire to better work and build better relationships between aboriginal people and first nations and the non-aboriginal community throughout the province.

H. Lali: I am heartened by his response that he's already on top of the issue of working with the forest and the mining industries on programs to try to get aboriginal participation in those economic opportunities.

I know the minister is aware that the higher the financial status or the economic circumstances of a community, the less social problems exist, whether they're alcohol and drug abuse, violence, even teenaged pregnancies, suicides and a number of these kind of things. One of the problems is that because the economic circumstances of people on reserve are so much lower than the rest of society, we're seeing those kinds of problems that I just mentioned are higher, and they're as a direct result of their economic circumstances. I know the minister knows this.

When I compare aboriginal children…. We talked about poverty in British Columbia and on reserve. When you look at aboriginal children…. They go to school, and they see non-aboriginal students who are there — children that are there because their economic circumstances are better and their economic standards are higher. These aboriginal people are not able to participate fully in the kinds of activities that the non-aboriginal kids are able to. So there are a lot of problems that emanate out of there in terms of the aboriginal children's relationship with their aboriginal parents simply because they can't afford to be able to have their children participate in extracurricular activities.

These cost money, as we know, whether they're in-school or extracurricular activities — recreational activities out of school in terms of the programs that are available in communities, whether it's ballet or hockey or kids participating in softball or arts and cultural kinds of activities. They feel left out. So this whole cycle, this downward cycle, this spiral we've seen in society in terms of the problems that exist, is magnified that much more for aboriginal children.

Of course, we have the same problem, as well, with the folks from poor families who are non-aboriginal, but the focus here is aboriginal children. So obviously, they get involved in activities that will get them on the wrong side of the law as well.

[1630]

Obviously, we as a society and as a government need to collectively take responsibility to make sure that aboriginal people are able to elevate their economic circumstances to the same level as non-aboriginal people.

I want to specifically talk now about some of these kinds of programs. Over a number of years, since the core review was done by the Liberal government, a lot of services were cut, whether it was alcohol- and drug-related counselling programs, on reserve and off reserve, or legal aid — most of the aboriginal people who used the legal system depended on legal aid — and a number of other areas as well.

I want to ask the minister: in terms of dealing with some of these social problems, what kinds of programs does the ministry have in place — or work with other ministries to put in place — that will deal with drug- and alcohol-related issues, teenage pregnancies on reserve, the high rate of suicide and incarceration, and also, access to health care?

[ Page 3608 ]

Hon. T. Christensen: I appreciate that the member, in the beginning of his question, sort of acknowledged the interconnectedness between a host of issues that are at play when we look at the broad issue of poverty. The member mentioned some of them. We look at poverty, which impacts health outcomes, which has an impact on the opportunity to pursue economic development. All of those are interrelated with education and the foundation that it provides to alleviate poverty, which in turn, improves health.

It's by no coincidence that the elements that have been identified, both in the new relationship and in the transformative change accord, are education, health, economic opportunity, housing — then all of them brought together by the need to build better relationships. Those five things together truly are the foundation for building a stronger community within first nations, and a community that is going to be vibrant.

Again, better support, better education, better health, the pursuit of economic opportunities — all of those things…. Really, the work that underlies the answers to the member's specific question is at the heart of what we are doing around the transformative change accord — across government provincially but, equally importantly, in concert with the leadership council — to identify: "Okay, what is the work that we need to do, looking forward, to close those gaps?"

The member's asked for some specifics. I'm not going to be able to provide them to the member, because the reality of the situation is that specific programs are delivered by a host of other line ministries provincially. If the member has specific questions around health care with respect to a first nation community or to aboriginal people, or around education or services delivered by the Ministry of Children and Family Development, he's better to ask those questions of those specific ministers.

The role of the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation is to work across government and in partnership with the leadership council to identify: where are the service gaps? Where are services being provided, but not terribly effectively? Where are we not working terribly well in concert with the federal government when we get to this on reserve–off reserve jurisdictional challenge that we confront?

[1635]

How do we, then, remove the existing barriers and address the existing service gaps so that over the course of time, in concert with both the federal government and first nations, we actually start to see progress on narrowing these gaps that we've all identified that we want to narrow in education, health, housing, economic opportunity? And how do we measure our progress so that two years from now, five years from now, we can actually tell whether we're having any success in doing that and can readjust the plans that we've put in place if we're not having success?

I think it's going to require continuous review and adjustment if we are going to make progress in closing those gaps over the next ten years.

H. Lali: I recognize — and the minister has actually pointed it out as well — that a lot of these kinds of programs are delivered by the line ministries. Perhaps I can reword this question and ask a different question.

In terms of the kinds of items I mentioned — whether it's drug and alcohol counselling, teenage pregnancies, family counselling, transition homes, suicide prevention types of programs and any other type of program that deals with some of the issues and problems that arise in society and in aboriginal society, in particular — does the ministry fund any of these types of programs? If the ministry does, could he perhaps be a little bit specific in pointing out what they are?

Hon. T. Christensen: The Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation doesn't tend to fund those direct services that the member refers to. What we tend to do is play a coordinating role, where possible, across government. We tend to work in bringing the conversation to the leadership council, so we can identify, through the feedback they're getting from first nations, what's working, what's not and where we can make improvements. Then we work, again, across government to try and rectify those situations.

We do provide some funding through part of our ministry to help support friendship centres. But again, that's not in terms of the direct services that those friendship centres provide. Rather, it's funding that really is more of a nature of allowing friendships to then do the work that they do and to access program delivery funds from other ministries.

H. Lali: Now I want to talk about the New Relationship fund. Like members of the government, members on the opposite side were happy to see that there was a $100 million fund that was going to be made available for capacity-building and other items. We're still waiting to see some of the details on how the fund's going to be administered and put out and what kind of results it could achieve. Obviously, the fund was a good thing.

A lot of the treaty-making involves capacity. There are a lot of questions related to capacity. Aboriginal people are unable to come to the table, simply because they don't have the expertise, i.e., capacity, to be able to do their research and sit down at the table as equal negotiating partners with government and, also, with non-government entities. It's a real problem.

We were quite happy to see that there was a $100 million fund. But I would also say that this one-time shot of $100 million is not going to be enough because of the number of bands and tribal councils in British Columbia. Obviously, the bands number in the hundreds. If you do the math, there are not a lot of funds to be passed around in terms of trying to build capacity.

[1640]

My question is to the minister. Why stop at just one year? We all agree that it's a good thing. There isn't a

[ Page 3609 ]

single member on the opposition bench who doesn't agree that that New Relationship fund of $100 million is not a good thing. We all agree that it's a good thing. But why stop at just one year? It's not just multi-year work that is out there; it's decades of work. Why not extend that fund beyond just the initial year and have a year-after-year, ongoing fund where aboriginal people can actually plan for the future instead of just looking at this one-time shot?

If you divide it by the hundreds of bands that are available out there, that exist in British Columbia, the $100 million fund doesn't go a long ways. It works out to something of about $300,000 to $400,000 per band. The capacity-building needs a lot more resources and finances than just the one-time shot.

I'd like the minister to respond and tell me: why stop at one year? Why not go forward in a multi-year program?

Hon. T. Christensen: The fund has been established. There's $100 million in the fund. The legislation that established the fund set out some principles, one of which is to try and ensure that this fund pays for capacity-building where there are not other funds already available for that purpose. The intent there was for this funding to try and fill gaps in the opportunity to build capacity but also to specifically try and leverage additional dollars from other sources. So there is the opportunity for this $100 million fund to grow.

Certainly, it's not anybody's expectation that a year from now or two years from now the $100 million is all going to be spent. It's going to be available for a number of years to build capacity because, as the member has acknowledged, it takes time to build capacity.

In one of his earlier questions, the member referenced that from a starting point, first nations — at the foundation — are further behind the rest of the population. I think the member said that, essentially, in order to effectively enable first nations to take advantage of all of the programs that are available to the public at large or to the general population, we have to do the work to bring them up to that place of equality so that they're then in a position to take advantage of the programs of general availability, just as everybody else is.

Part of that capacity-building is, in fact, to assist in doing that and will, over time, ensure that we start to narrow the gap that, I guess, is there at the foundation level. So moving forward, we see that aboriginal people are participating at the same rates or, ideally, even higher than the general population in filling the need for a variety of skills right across society.

The $100 million is going to go a long way to doing that. I think we're all very much looking forward to the board's development of this first strategic plan and their setting of the priorities, which will be set based on consultations with first nations and the public at large, to see where the initial investments are going to be made to build capacity and to….

I think what I would envision is that as we start to see that capacity build within those first nations communities, they are going to be able to take advantage of some of the economic opportunities that are available for their community and for them as individuals. As they do that, that's actually going to reinforce the ability to build capacity. So it becomes a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy once the exercise of starting the capacity-building begins.

Certainly, this $100 million fund provides a strong, strong beginning. We're hopeful that it will leverage other contributions to build capacity, and I think all of us will be watching. Two years from now…. There's a five-year review built into the act that established the fund to determine what difference this is making. Do we need to look at other measures? We're committed to narrowing those gaps, and this is one tool that we think is going to go a long way to doing that.

[1645]

H. Lali: I have one final question before I pass it on to members to my left — geographically speaking. I just want to talk about forest and range agreements and the repudiation of those by the UBCIC. I just want to see what the minister's thoughts are in terms of trying to either bring it back on track or find a solution.

I'd like to ask the minister: what is the role of the ministry in terms of the forest and range agreement, and what steps is the minister prepared to take to make sure that there is agreement between the government and first nations in this province?

Hon. T. Christensen: The critic for the opposition asked a number of questions around forest and range agreements last week, but I'll say, hopefully, what I said last week as well. There was a considerable amount of work that went into the negotiation of a new forest and range agreement template, negotiation at the First Nations Leadership Council, at the new relationship table through last fall, to come to the proposed template.

That template is significantly different than what the original forest and range agreements were. We certainly believe that the new template provides a good opportunity for first nations to become involved in the forest economy and that it goes a long way to addressing a host of concerns that were raised with respect to the wording in the original forest and range agreement. I think we can't lose sight of the fact that we've had many, many first nations around the province who have chosen to take advantage of the opportunity these agreements provide.

Having said that, I recognize that the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs assembly has raised some specific concerns with the new template. I think some of those concerns aren't…. Well, it's new to us that they were raised in the context of the forest and range agreement, but they're not new concerns generally. They're ones that we recognize we need to make progress in addressing in our general conversation around revenue-sharing, around how we look at first nations having a better opportunity to participate in economic development.

That broader question is part of the work that's underway with the leadership council at the new rela-

[ Page 3610 ]

tionship table. But the forest and range…. The new template was intended to be an interim agreement, as some of those bigger questions are still dealt with at the main table.

C. Wyse: I have, at this point, two questions for the minister, and I wish to give him somewhat of an advance warning of the general area where my questions fall. They're around land usage, ownership, issues of that nature.

The questions that have been given to me come from the ranching community of Cariboo South. The ranching community wishes the issues around treaties, including land usage and ownership, to be resolved. I wish to start off with that statement. However, the ranching community also wishes assurances that their interests and the possible impact on the ranching industry will be heard during the treaty process. My question to the minister: what process will be made available for this community to present their opinions during treaty negotiations?

[1650]

Hon. T. Christensen: I appreciate the member's question, because he raises an important issue, and fundamentally, that is that whether it's in the context of the new relationship or more specifically in the context of treaty negotiations, at the end of the day, these are agreements that affect all British Columbians. They're intended, certainly, to address