2004 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 28, 2004

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 24, Number 7

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Jerry Deere

Hon. M. de Jong

Bill Gillis

Hon. M. de Jong

Ministerial Statements

National Day of Mourning

Hon. G. Bruce

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Health Care Services Continuation Act (Bill M201)

J. MacPhail

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

National Day of Mourning

J. MacPhail

Eyesight clinic

P. Sahota

Prevention of violence against women

G. Trumper

Oral Questions

Impact of government policies on health care

J. MacPhail

Hon. G. Bruce

Hon. G. Campbell

J. Kwan

Hon. C. Hansen

Income assistance and employment transition services

V. Anderson

Hon. S. Hagen

Economic growth in B.C.

R. Sultan

Hon. G. Collins

Working forest initiative

K. Krueger

Hon. G. Abbott

Committee of the Whole House

Nanaimo and South West Water Supply Act (Bill 31)

M. Hunter

Hon. M. Coell

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Nanaimo and South West Water Supply Act (Bill 31)

Second Reading of Bills

College and Institute Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 26)

Hon. S. Bond

Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 27)

Hon. G. Abbott

G. Halsey-Brandt

Provincial Revenue Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 34)

Hon. R. Thorpe

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Attorney General and Ministry Responsible for Treaty Negotiations

Hon. G. Plant

J. Kwan

D. MacKay

L. Mayencourt

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Health Sector (Facilities Subsector) Collective Agreement Act (Bill 37)

Hon. G. Bruce

Standing Order 81 Motion

Hon. G. Collins

J. MacPhail

Standing Order 81 Motion (Speaker's Ruling)

Second Reading of Bills

Health Sector (Facilities Subsector) Collective Agreement Act (Bill 37)

Hon. G. Bruce

J. MacPhail

J. Kwan

P. Nettleton

Hon. G. Abbott

E. Brenzinger

Hon. C. Hansen

B. Kerr

B. Lekstrom

Hon. G. Bruce

Committee of the Whole House

Health Sector (Facilities Subsector) Collective Agreement Act (Bill 37)

J. MacPhail

Hon. G. Bruce

J. Kwan

B. Lekstrom

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Health Sector (Facilities Subsector) Collective Agreement Act (Bill 37)

Tabling Documents

Hon. G. Bruce

Royal Assent to Bills

Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2004 (Bill 5)

Taxation Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 6)

Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 12)

Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 13)

Vancouver Tourism Levy Enabling Act (Bill 14)

Water, Land and Air Protection Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 16)

Land Survey Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 17)

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 18)

Education Services Collective Agreement Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 19)

Motor Dealer Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 24)

Wildfire Act (Bill 25)

Coal Act (Bill 28)

Mineral Tenure Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 29)

Nanaimo and South West Water Supply Act (Bill 31)

Society Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 32)

Health Sector (Facilities Subsector) Collective Agreement Act (Bill 37)

B.J. Field Service Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2004 (Bill Pr401)

Kidd Resources Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2004 (Bill Pr402)

Pheidias Project Management

(1979) Corp. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2004 (Bill Pr403)

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Transportation (continued)

J. MacPhail

Hon. K. Falcon

[ Page 10575 ]

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 28, 2004

The House

met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. G.

Campbell: It's a pleasure to introduce a group of very special British

Columbians who are with us in the House today. They are in the members' gallery,

and they are members of the Order of British Columbia Advisory Council. These

are the men and women who have taken on the onerous task of reviewing the 241

nominations that are in this year for the Order of British Columbia. It is a

challenging task.

The OBC

Advisory Council is chaired by the Chief Justice of the Court of Appeal of B.C.,

the Hon. Lance Finch. It includes, of course, the distinguished Speaker of the

House. The president of the Union of B.C. Municipalities, Frank Leonard, is also

on the council — the president of the University of Northern British Columbia,

Dr. Charles Jago; Athana Mentzelopoulos, the Deputy Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations; and two members of the Order, Dr. Milton Wong from

Vancouver and Debra Foxcroft from Port Alberni. I hope the House will make them

all welcome and wish them well in their deliberations.

Weisbeck: Seated on the floor of the chamber are three guests from Australia

who are visiting us: Mr. John Mills, MP, Chairman of Committees, New South Wales

Legislative Assembly; the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner, MLC, a member of the New South

Wales Legislative Council; and Mr. Ian Faulks, committee manager, Parliament of

New South Wales. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. G.

Collins: Today in the members' gallery I'd like to acknowledge a special

visitor from Iceland. Please join me in welcoming His Excellency Gudmundur

Eiriksson, the newly appointed ambassador of Iceland to Canada. This is the

ambassador's first visit to British Columbia. I'm pleased he has travelled here

to discover the many opportunities that this great and beautiful province has to

offer. He's accompanied today by Heather Ireland, the honorary consul general of

Iceland at Vancouver. Would the House please help make them welcome.

Bhullar: A good friend of mine David Hudak and his lovely wife, Leslie, are

visiting us today. They're in the gallery. David is an expert in

counterinsurgency and had the unfortunate experience of being held by the U.S.

authorities for 16 months after being wrongly accused and just arrived back in

Canada last Friday. Will the House please make them welcome.

[1410]

Trumper: It's my pleasure today to ask the House to welcome Bob Kanngiesser

from my riding. Bob just retired a few months ago as the secretary-treasurer of

school district 70 and, actually, a few years ago was a candidate for the

Liberal Party provincially. Would you please make him welcome.

Anderson: Today in the gallery I am very pleased to welcome 18 students from

the Ideal Mini School in Vancouver and the James Lyng High School in Montreal.

They are accompanied by Susan Gerofsky from the Ideal Mini School. The students

from James Lyng High School in Montreal are here as part of a youth Canada

exchange program funded by the federal Heritage ministry and administered by the

YMCA. Would the House please help me to give them a very warm British Columbia

welcome.

Krueger: It's my pleasure to introduce 19 grades 4 to 6 students from

Pinantan Elementary School in my constituency and eight accompanying adults —

all in the care of Ms. Courtney, their teacher. Would the House please make them

very welcome.

Hayer: I am pleased to rise in this House today following the introduction

by the member for Vancouver-Langara. Accompanying the students from James Lyng

High School in Montreal is one of the teachers and my cousin, Angela Hayer.

Would the House please make her very welcome.

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, I would like to take this opportunity to introduce 25

public servants seated in both the east and west galleries who are participating

in a full-day parliamentary procedure workshop. This workshop, offered by the

Legislative Assembly, provides a first-hand opportunity for the public service

to gain a greater understanding of the relationship between the work of their

ministries and how that work affects the Legislature. Would the House please

make them welcome.

Tributes

JERRY DEERE

Hon. M.

de Jong: Some sad news today. On the weekend British Columbia lost a couple

of pioneers — forest giants.

Jerry Deere

had spent a lifetime in forestry, much of it with Canadian Forest Products and

more recently with East Fraser Fiber, which he joined as president in 1999. He

was a former chairman of the Northern Forest Products Association, a former

director of the Prince George Region Development Corporation and had vast,

extensive involvements with 4-H. At the time of his passing he was a board

member with the Council of Forest Industries, the Mackenzie Economic Development

Commission, and a director with the Prince George Airport Authority.

He had

provided a lifetime of service to his community and to the industry that he

loved. He passed away also doing something he loved — on a golf trip

[ Page 10576 ]

with friends and members of the industry he had worked in. He leaves a wife,

two daughters and, within the last two years, two grandchildren who were the

pride of his life. That was Jerry Deere.

BILL GILLIS

Hon. M.

de Jong: We also sadly — and I speak on behalf now, I'm sure, of all

members but most particularly the member for Burnaby-Edmonds — lost Bill

Gillis. Bill Gillis had spent in excess of a half-century in forestry. When he

returned to Canada after serving his country in World War II, he was a true

pioneer not just in his work as the founder of Mill and Timber Products and

Haida Forest Products but also in the development of certain techniques, like

kiln-drying western red cedar.

Three years

ago the Fraser River Discovery Centre Society recognized Bill Gillis as a

pioneer for the pioneering work that he had done, and they installed him in the

Fraser River Hall of Fame. As I say, he was a longtime resident of Burnaby. His

son Jim is now the president of Haida Forest Products. We saw Jim just a few

days ago, and even then there was hope that his dad, Bill, was going to launch

another of his famous comebacks. It was not to be. His family — Jim, Dave, his

daughter Diane and all of his grandchildren and extended family — grieve, and

we grieve with them. But his — as was Jerry's — was a life well lived.

I hope, Mr.

Speaker, that you will convey the sentiments of this House to two forestry

giants that we lost.

Mr.

Speaker: So ordered.

[1415]

Introductions by Members

S. Orr:

The guest has already been introduced, but I would also like to welcome one of

my mayors. That's Mayor Frank Leonard, who is also the mayor for the member for

Saanich South and the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head. I just want to remind

the members of this House that he taught me everything I know, so I'd like you

to blame him. Would all the House please make him welcome.

Ministerial Statements

NATIONAL DAY OF MOURNING

Hon. G.

Bruce: Today flags are flying half-mast on buildings across the province to

mark the twentieth anniversary of the Day of Mourning for workers who have lost

their lives as a result of work-related accidents or occupational diseases.

Every year

on this day we renew our commitment to fight for the safety of the living as

well as mourn for those workers who have died on the job. Every year we need to

remind ourselves that as alarming and shocking as the statistics may be, this is

not about statistics; it's actually about people — people in your community

and people in my community.

As a

Vancouver Island MLA, I come from an area that has seen its share of workplace

tragedy this year. A year ago this month my friend Ted Towe, an IWA member from

Duncan, died when he fell from the back of a semitrailer. Last May, Julia James,

a family friend — and her mom and dad — and former employee of mine from

Chemainus, drowned when a company vehicle went into a lake at a remote

tree-planting area near Quesnel. Julia was just 20 years old.

September, Percy Forbes from Port Alberni died after he lost control of an

off-road logging truck on a steep

section off a logging road in the Sarita area.

In October, John Riley from Parksville was killed when a load of lumber fell on

him at Interfor's field sawmill in Courtenay. In February, Roy Smith of the

Malahat, Derek Myers of Victoria and Dennis Webber of Errington lost their lives

when their fishing boat, the Hope Bay , capsized west of Port Hardy. All

were good people just trying to do their jobs when tragedy struck, as were all

the others who were so tragically taken from us.

There are

positive signs, though. The injury rate in B.C. workplaces reached an all-time

low in 2003 — a 42 percent decrease since 1994. Credit must go to the efforts

of many workers, companies, unions, industry associations and the WCB. All of

them have done a lot to make workplaces safer. Still, we saw more than 150

fatalities last year and more than 5,300 permanent injuries.

Although

these deaths in the workplace occur in all sectors, there are some that require

special attention. The forest industry is one such sector that has an

unacceptable rate of death and serious injuries. The WCB along with the forest

industry — companies, contractors, unions — and the government have

established the Forest Safety Task Force. This group has worked together over

the last eight months to come up with 20 recommendations that will help save

lives and prevent serious injuries in the woods.

To make

these recommendations a reality, though, the industry is now forming an

operational team, developing an action plan with the larger forest community to

work through the recommendations and implement changes to make B.C.'s forests

safer places to work. The important factor here is that all the agencies are

working together to make these changes, because it's cooperation that will yield

the best results.

I along

with you, I'm sure, look forward to the day when we won't have to add names to

the list of those who have gone from us. It's a day that we all must work

toward, and I would ask everyone here and those in the workplaces — employers

and employees — to make that commitment to themselves, to their friends and to

their colleagues.

Mr.

Speaker, I would ask that we take a moment now to pause in a moment of silence

for those that have lost their lives, in memory of them.

[1420]

Mr.

Speaker: Thank you, hon. members.

[ Page 10577 ]

MacPhail: I, too, will be acknowledging this day in a few moments in a

member's statement.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

HEALTH CARE SERVICES

CONTINUATION ACT

J. MacPhail

presented a bill intituled Health Care Services Continuation Act.

MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, I move the bill standing in my name on the order

paper, entitled Health Care Services Continuation Act, be introduced and read a

first time now.

Motion

approved.

MacPhail: This bill proposes a 90-day moratorium on the privatization in the

health care sector and puts both the Hospital Employees Union and the Health

Employers Association of B.C. back to the bargaining table to hammer out an

agreement that works for patients. This bill ensures that health care workers

get back to work with the confidence that bargaining can continue in good faith

and that patient care is not compromised.

Strikes in

the health care sector hurt patients, but so do the actions of a government that

chooses confrontation over negotiation. The Premier has demonstrated time and

time again that when it comes to health care, he's ready for a fight. It doesn't

seem to matter with whom — nurses, doctors, lab technicians and now support

services staff. His approach is to bully, bad-talk and do battle.

Again today

he is ready to legislate a contract for health care workers, but this bill is an

alternative we put before him. The alternative I am putting forward is a win-win

situation for everyone. Patients get the care they need as the employees and

employers are able to sit down and resume talks without outside pressure.

Patients

have already been hurt enough by the policies of this government. Wait-lists

have increased by 26 percent, hospitals have closed across the province,

emergency services decreased and long-term beds reduced. Patients have suffered

enough because of the Premier's broken promises. It's time to honour the

promises made three years ago to patients and health care providers and not

legislate a contract in their name. I strongly encourage the government to adopt

this bill as a government bill, and the opposition will ensure its passage

today.

I move that

the bill be placed on the orders of the day for consideration at the next

sitting after today.

Bill M201

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) NATIONAL DAY OF MOURNING

MacPhail: I, too, rise today to commemorate the National Day of Mourning for

injured workers. The National Day of Mourning is an occasion for British

Columbians to join with Canadians from coast to coast to coast to mourn the

tragic deaths and injuries that result from occupational accidents and

work-related incidents.

The numbers

are staggering. In Canada some 900 employees die from accidents at work each

year, averaging more than two deaths every day. From 1993 to 2002 more than

8,000 people lost their lives due to workplace accidents — by any other name,

a pandemic. Another 900,000 per year are injured. In 2003 more than 200 people

died from work-related injury, illness or disease here in this province, four of

whom were between the ages of 15 and 24, and close to 5,000 British Columbians

were permanently disabled.

[1425]

The

National Day of Mourning held every year on April 28 was officially recognized

in Canada in 1991, eight years after the day of remembrance was launched by the

Canadian Labour Congress. The Day of Mourning has since spread to 80 countries

around the world. It is a day to reflect on the sacrifices that working people

make to build our country and our province; a day to rededicate our efforts to

make workplaces in British Columbia as safe and as productive as they can be,

and to take a positive approach to how we look after working people. One worker

injured or killed on the job is one too many. Let us remember those who have

lost their lives, and let us also remain dedicated to working for the living and

to preventing further needless tragedies.

EYESIGHT CLINIC

Sahota: A couple of weeks ago a free eye clinic was conducted by Canadian

Eyesight International at the Ross Street Temple in Vancouver. This was the

first time a clinic of this type was organized, and the president of Canadian

Eyesight, Mr. Anup Jubbal, said that the clinic was a huge success.

A total of

eight doctors, three nurses and many volunteers participated in this health

awareness effort. Dr. Jay Kalra travelled all the way from Saskatoon to offer

his assistance. Well-known local eye surgeons Dr. David Neima and Dr. Amrik

Panesar participated in the eye clinic, and they saw a total of 307 people. Many

patients also received checkups for diabetes and high blood pressure. The

medicines given to the eye patients were also distributed free of charge.

I want to

express my appreciation to the many doctors and volunteers who volunteered their

time: Dr. Parmjit Sohal, Dr. Paramjit Bhui, RN Nalini Bhui, Dr.

[ Page 10578 ]

Sukhi Bubra from Abbotsford, Dr. Hardip Thind of Burnaby and Dr. Saroj Kumar.

Due to the

success of this project, the organizers are planning a second eye clinic on July

25 at the Miri-Piri celebration at the Guru Nanak Sikh Temple in Surrey. My

colleague from Surrey–Green Timbers and I are very much looking forward to

volunteering our efforts towards this good cause. The organizers also want to

repeat these free eye clinics quarterly and would like to expand this program to

eastern Canada.

I am glad

that many people took the opportunity to attend the first free eye clinic. It's

also extremely important that all B.C. residents visit an optometrist or

ophthalmologist for regular eye health exams. While opticians have the

technology to determine prescriptions for glasses and contact lenses, only

licensed physicians like optometrists and ophthalmologists can properly diagnose

symptoms of disease such as glaucoma, cataracts and damage caused by diabetes. I

encourage all my constituents to see a medical professional on a regular basis

to ensure their eyes remain healthy for many years to come.

PREVENTION OF VIOLENCE

AGAINST WOMEN

Trumper: This week is Prevention of Violence Against Women Week, something

that should be recognized 52 weeks a year. This week is about raising awareness

of the importance of eliminating violence against women once and for all. Every

day you hear about crimes in the news — robbery, assault and theft. What you

don't hear much about is violence against women, because more often than not,

this violence occurs behind closed doors when home becomes hell.

Times are

changing, and things are improving for women, but we have to do more. We have to

do more for the women and their children but also for the men. Believe it or

not, there are men walking this earth today that still believe it is socially

acceptable to slap a woman if she gets out of line. We see it in movies. We hear

it from past generations. In fact, it can be argued that the phrase "rule

beat his wife with a stick no thicker than the diameter of his thumb. These

people must be educated.

Will

violence against women ever stop? I hope so. But we must not abandon the cause.

On days and weeks like today we must do what we can to educate all our

constituents in Canada. This government provides $33 million a year to direct

services for women including prevention initiatives, transition houses, safe

homes, second-stage housing and counselling. In a perfect world none of these

services would exist, because women would not be subject to abuse.

Unfortunately, we live in a less-than-perfect world, and we must all do our part

to make sure no more women suffer abuse as a result.

Mr.

Speaker: That concludes members' statements.

[1430]

Oral Questions

IMPACT OF GOVERNMENT POLICIES

ON HEALTH CARE

MacPhail: Let me quote the Premier from 2001: "I don't believe in

ripping up agreements. I think the question today is how you maintain the

quality and talent of the people who are in the system. I am not tearing up

agreements." Will the Premier stand up today and take responsibility for

not telling the truth to the people of British Columbia?

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. member, just before we proceed…. Your remark is very

borderline on unparliamentary language. I would ask you to please rephrase the

last part of your question.

MacPhail: The Premier said in 2001: "I don't believe in ripping up

agreements. I think the question today is how you maintain the quality and

talent of the people who are in the system. I am not tearing up

agreements."

Will the

Premier stand up today and take responsibility for completely changing his

position — not once, not twice, but a half-dozen times?

Hon. G.

Bruce: You know, it takes a lot to do the things that are right to make a

government work for the people in the province. I think the Leader of the

Opposition ought to know that, in fact, this government has worked very, very

hard to establish improved relationships in this province, and we've been able

to negotiate 37 public sector–negotiated settlements in this province.

I think

it's also important to note that as you move ahead through that particular

aspect of things, we have seen the entire economy grow as people are working

together to make British Columbia a better place to live.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further question.

MacPhail: I'll tell you, if the B.C. health care system was any better

because the Premier broke his promise, British Columbians might forgive him. But

it's not. In fact, it's worse, and it's getting worse every day.

The

Premier's health care policies are failing around this province. He promised to

reduce wait-lists. They're up 26 percent in less than three years. He promised

to reduce wait times, but in almost every category they are up substantially. He

promised to respect health care workers, but every health care professional in

this province — doctors, nurses, technicians, food service workers — is

united in their opposition to this government.

Can the

Premier explain why he is deliberately driving our health care system into the

ground?

[ Page 10579 ]

Hon. G.

Campbell: When this government took office, we said we were going to focus

our agenda on taking care of people in the province, taking care of patients. We

said we were going to respect our health care professionals. We've done that. We

have the highest-paid doctors, the highest-paid nurses, the highest-paid health

care professionals in the country, because we recognize that those professionals

deliver.

We said we

were going to eliminate unnecessary bureaucracy and duplication so we could

focus resources on patients. We said we would protect health care funding. We've

done that. In fact, we have added $2 billion to the health care budget to meet

the needs of British Columbians. That's meant more nurses, more doctors and more

care for British Columbians, which is what British Columbians deserve.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplementary.

MacPhail: British Columbians are sick of that kind of spin. No wonder the

Premier wouldn't get up and say what he meant when he said: "I'm not

tearing up agreements." They're sick of being told that patient care is

getting better. They're sick of being misled in advertisements that they have to

pay for.

Let me

quote from the former chief of medical staff at Kootenay Lake Hospital about the

effect of this government's cuts on his hospital. I note that no Liberal member

will ever ask this question. Here's the quote: "We've had some really close

calls, but no one has died yet. But eventually, I think, someone will die."

Well, someone did die. Edward Morritt waited six hours for treatment for a

ruptured spleen that took his life as a result of cuts to emergency care. That's

what every health care professional says.

Will the

Premier stand up and repeat his promise that people will get health care where

they need it and when they need it, or will he finally admit to patients in B.C.

that they're suffering because he didn't tell them what he was going to do —

that he misled them?

[1435]

Hon. G.

Campbell: Over the last three years we have managed to encourage doctors and

nurses to go to rural locations and remote locations across British Columbia. We

have watched as regional hospitals have been built up in Kamloops, in Prince

George and in Cranbrook. We've watched as we've had an increasing number of

specialists come to provide for people with needs. We've watched as this

government has invested in telehealth so people get care quickly in the

hospitals where they need it, as quickly as they can.

recognize that health care is a major challenge as British Columbians age, but

we also recognize that the critical component of health care is to take the

resources that we ask taxpayers to give us and focus them on patients where they

live, and that's exactly what this government has done.

J. Kwan:

This Premier promised British Columbians that he wouldn't rip up collective

agreements and that he would deliver health care when you need it and where you

need it, and he's failed on both counts. When confronted with the evidence of

Mr. Morritt's tragic death…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Let us hear the question, hon.

members.

J. Kwan:

…the Health minister insisted that it was not due to cutbacks. He said that

the after-hours ultrasound Mr. Morritt required was never available at the

Kootenay Lake Hospital. Not true. According to nurses and doctors who work in

Nelson, before this government took office, they had surgeons on call. They had

radiologists on call, they had technologists on call, and they had after-hours

ultrasound on call. Now they don't. Can the Premier explain why he's spending

$19 million on health care advertisements when patients in Nelson can't even get

an ultrasound?

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. The Minister of Health Services has the floor.

Hon. C.

Hansen: I think as the members know, there are two inquiries underway. The

health authority has engaged in an independent review of that. I can assure the

member that the review that has been done indicates that ultrasound was

available, that the radiologist can be called in before the changes and could be

called in now.

The only

difference is that in fact the radiologist, had he been called in on that

particular night, would have been paid more than he would…. He would not have

been paid in the past. He in fact would have been paid for that callback. I

think it's important that the opposition members allow for those investigations

to proceed so that we can find out exactly what did happen in those

circumstances. I think we owe that to the memory of Mr. Morritt.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary

question.

J. Kwan:

With the spin of this government, the government's credibility gap is getting

bigger every day. It's just been over 1,000 days since this Premier won the

election — 1,000 days of decline. [Applause.]

Only this

back bench….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please, hon. members on both sides of the House, so we may

hear the question.

[ Page 10580 ]

J. Kwan:

Only this bench of government members would clap when British Columbia is faced

with 1,000 days of decline for patient care.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please, order please. Order, please, hon. members. The

member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has the floor.

J. Kwan:

No one believes this government's spin. Their excuses have run out. Three years

of broken promises have worn out British Columbians' patience. When will the

Premier admit that three years of privatization, three years of conflict and

three years of cutbacks have not improved patient care but have put patients'

lives at risk?

Hon. G.

Campbell: I certainly understand what the member opposite is concerned

about. We're all concerned about health care. We were concerned when the

previous government cut back on the number of nurses they trained in British

Columbia. We were concerned when the previous government cut back on the number

of doctors. What we have done is increased the number of nurses that are being

trained….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Let us have order in the chamber.

Hon. G.

Campbell: We have increased the number of nurses that are trained. In fact,

we've reduced the vacancy in nurses that we inherited from the previous

government. We are going to almost double the number of doctors that are trained

in British Columbia. For the first time in history we'll be training doctors at

the University of Northern British Columbia and at the University of Victoria.

[1440]

We have

added substantially to the health care budget, and in adding to that health care

budget, we have provided for the most important component of health care. That's

the people who deliver the care: doctors, nurses, physiotherapists — people

who will be assured that the 38,000 additional procedures we've added last year

over the year before are going to continue to be added as we improve health care

for people in every region of this province.

INCOME ASSISTANCE AND

EMPLOYMENT TRANSITION SERVICES

Anderson: My question is to the Minister of Human Resources. People in my

community who are recognized by his ministry as having multiple barriers would

like to find a way to seek employment and training for that employment. However,

some of these persons find the prospect of this transition very stressful. What

resources are available to help these people during this potentially stressful

transition to employment and training?

Hon. S.

Hagen: This government recognizes that each person on income assistance may

have barriers to overcome. Some have significant barriers that seriously

interfere with their ability to participate in the workplace or in their

community, while others face barriers that may be readily overcome with some

specialized services. That's why we tailor our services to meet the needs of

each individual.

We offer a

vast range of services, including basic life skills such as hygiene, nutrition

support for victims of abuse or former sex-trade workers, skills training,

interview preparation and job placement. Our goal is to assist every client to

achieve self-reliance and build a brighter future. Through our programs, they

are doing just that.

ECONOMIC GROWTH IN B.C.

Sultan: My question is to The Minister of Finance. Over the last 12 months,

we've all heard the opposition claim that British Columbia has just about the

worst-performing economy in Canada, particularly last year but continuing today.

Also, today I understand Carole James chimed in with further denigration of our

economic performance. Could the Minister of Finance please tell the House if the

opposition's claim has any validity whatsoever?

Hon. G.

Collins: He might not be surprised by my answer. The answer is no, it

doesn't have any validity. As late as today Carole James was still spreading

doom and gloom about British Columbia, saying that our economy is dead last. She

must be thinking back to those days when her party, the NDP, was in government,

and we actually were dead last. Today StatsCan came out and said that in 2003,

British Columbia's economic growth rate was 2.2 percent — tied with the

province of Alberta and well ahead of the national average.

But there

is more good news, because Scotiabank, Toronto-Dominion Bank and the B.C.

Chamber of Commerce all say that British Columbia is going to move ahead to No.

2 in growth this year. The StatsCan numbers today also show that British

Columbia was No. 2 in hours of work worked last year. That makes us No. 2 in

Canada. It means people are changing from part-time to full-time growth. Not

only are we creating more jobs as the No. 1 job creator in Canada, but we're

creating better jobs for British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Order, please.

WORKING FOREST INITIATIVE

Krueger: Several weeks ago…

[ Page 10581 ]

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

[1445]

Krueger: …the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant joined Ken Wu of the

Western Canada Wilderness Committee to protest the working forest initiative,

suggesting that it would put communities in jeopardy and people out of jobs.

The NDP's

version of land use management still haunts our memory. It was driven by

political tides, leaving working families, communities and stakeholders without

any land use certainty or opportunities for new jobs. I believe the working

forest initiative will benefit working families and the communities I represent,

who rely on access to our land base. I see our forest industry once again

gaining strength in British Columbia. Would the minister please respond to Mr.

Wu's concerns?

Hon. G.

Abbott: I thank the member for his question. We have heard a lot of nonsense

and a lot of blather from the Western Canada Wilderness Committee about the

working forest initiative. I know I was personally disappointed to see the NDP

at their demonstration, but I guess they're not strangers to nonsense and

blather as well, so it's not entirely an uncomfortable partnership between the

two.

I will say

this. The working forest initiative aims to…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Let's continue when we have order in the chamber.

Hon. G.

Abbott: …make sure that working families have a place in the future on the

working forest base of British Columbia. It's an initiative that takes account

not only of forestry but also of mining, tourism and other enterprises that can

occur on Crown lands across British Columbia.

I share the

member's view here. We do need parks; we do need protected areas. But we also

need to ensure that working families have a future on the land base in British

Columbia as well.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

[End

of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of

members, we'll be continuing the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation.

In this

House, I call Committee of the Whole House for consideration of Bill 31.

Committee of the Whole House

NANAIMO AND SOUTH WEST

WATER SUPPLY ACT

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 31; K. Stewart in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:50 p.m.

Sections 1

to 4 inclusive approved.

section 5.

Hunter: This

section sets out the establishment of a water advisory

committee and allows for the continuation of the current board under the Greater

Nanaimo Water District Act should the city of Nanaimo not set up a committee. My

understanding is that the city of Nanaimo does intend to set up a water advisory

committee, and I wonder if the minister can indicate to me what criteria this

legislation puts forward — or the Community Charter — with respect to the

composition of that committee.

The reason

I ask this is that in second reading, I made reference to my expectation that

this legislation — and I believe the minister confirmed it — could actually

help in terms of getting some water issues resolved in my community. Is it his

expectation that this committee, which is to be set up under this section, will

in fact have some criteria with respect to membership and terms of reference

that will be helpful?

Hon. M.

Coell: The initial committee is four members from the water district and one

from the regional district.

Hunter: Can the minister point to where that is set out? Is that a

continuation of the existing Nanaimo water district board?

Hon. M.

Coell: It's a continuation of the existing board. The four are actually from

Nanaimo.

Hunter: Should the city decide it wishes to establish a committee under

section 5(1), then I am assuming that the committee to which the minister just

referred is extinguished. My question is: if there is a new committee, are there

requirements for residence or other criteria that will govern the selection of

that committee by the city?

Hon. M.

Coell: We haven't developed the regulations as yet, but we will be requiring

a minimum of one from the southwest area.

Sections 5

to 7 inclusive approved.

On

section

Hunter: My question on this

section actually pursues the same line of

inquiry. Since under the

[ Page 10582 ]

Community Charter the city of Nanaimo has more authority with respect to the

passage of bylaws, what is the relationship between the city council and its

advisory committee? Is it that the advisory committee just simply gives advice,

and there is nothing more complicated than that? I've had questions about what

control we have over the city of Nanaimo in terms of the setting of bylaws. I

assume that's just a normal municipal process and that

section 8 stands apart

from

section 5.

Hon. M.

Coell: The advisory committee is specifically advice. The board actually

makes the decisions.

Sections 8

to 11 inclusive approved.

Title

approved.

Hon. M.

Coell: I would move that we report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 2:55 p.m.

The House

resumed; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 31,

Nanaimo and South West Water Supply Act, reported complete without amendment,

read a third time and passed.

Hon. R.

Coleman: I call second reading of Bill 26.

Second Reading of Bills

COLLEGE AND INSTITUTE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004

Hon. S.

Bond: I move that Bill 26 now be read a second time.

This

year the British Columbia Institute of Technology celebrates its fortieth

anniversary as a unique and integral part of B.C.'s post-secondary education

system. It has been a truly remarkable journey for the institution, growing from

a single campus in Burnaby in 1964 to a world-class polytechnic institution

boasting five campuses, 12 satellite locations around British Columbia and more

than 48,000 students.

This

government's commitment to add 25,000 new student spaces to the system

throughout the province by 2010 underscores our determination to give every

post-secondary institution in British Columbia the tools they need to expand and

thrive and meet the needs of our students. We have also made a commitment to

clear the path of unwarranted obstructions affecting their ability to operate

efficiently and deliver the very best services to our students.

I am

pleased to say that so far in this government's mandate, we have worked to

streamline post-secondary legislation in a number of ways. Examples of the work

we have done include eliminating the outdated legislation that required

institutions to submit annual budget proposals to the Minister of Advanced

Education. We've also eliminated the requirement that the minister present the

annual report of the British Columbia Institute of Technology to the

Legislature. These are no longer needed with the advent of our three-year

service plans and an accountability framework that we put in place to spell out

government's expectations clearly.

We have

removed the provision in the College and Institute Act that required the

minister to coordinate continuing education programs, leaving it to those who

know best — institutions themselves — to direct this vital part of

post-secondary education. We have streamlined the process for approving new

degree programs for public institutions by allowing them to gain approval via

ministers' orders rather than orders-in-council, and we have removed the

requirement that institutional boards and administrators obtain government

approval of their bylaws.

The

legislation we are discussing here today continues my ministry's work to make

sure that B.C.'s public colleges, university colleges and institutes continue to

do their work unencumbered by needless red tape. In B.C. currently, two acts

govern the way BCIT and our colleges and institutes manage their affairs. BCIT

is governed by the Institute of Technology Act, while the legislative framework

for other provincial institutes, colleges and university colleges is contained

in the College and Institute Act.

As part of

a larger review of the public post-secondary education legislation, we consulted

with BCIT about more streamlined legislation for our colleges, university

colleges and institutes. We examined the small difference in governance

structures and operational frameworks between BCIT and other institutions to

determine if they were meaningful and whether changes in legislation might help

them manage their administration activities more effectively. We learned there

is overlap and inconsistency between the two acts.

For

example, differences exist with respect to the level of discretion that the BCIT

board and the other institutional boards may exercise when choosing between

bylaws and resolutions to help them make decisions. The amendments we are

putting forward today will clarify the governance powers of all boards by

identifying those matters that must be governed through bylaws while providing

boards the autonomy and flexibility to govern other matters through bylaws or

resolutions as they deem appropriate.

[1500]

The object

here is to have a legislative structure in place that is enabling rather than

prescriptive and limiting, and one that applies uniformly to all of our

colleges, university colleges and institutes. By repealing the Institute of

Technology Act and including BCIT under the College and Institute Act, these

amendments will eliminate unnecessary duplication that currently

[ Page 10583 ]

exists between the two acts and will streamline public post-secondary

education legislation. While doing this, we are ensuring that BCIT retains the

legislation it requires to fill its mandate as B.C.'s polytechnic institution.

During our

discussions with institutions they told us they want boards of governors to have

discretion to delegate authority to institutional presidents to appoint, promote

or remove employees. This is something university boards have been able to do

for some time, and it seemed to us a reasonable option for the rest of the

post-secondary sector as well. It also enables boards to act as appeal bodies

for such decisions.

Existing

legislation unnecessarily restricts institutional boards in other ways. For

example, the College and Institute Act requires each board to appoint a bursar

to exercise powers and perform duties assigned by the board, while the Institute

of Technology Act permits but does not require the BCIT board to appoint a

bursar. Giving all boards the ability to appoint bursars when they deem it wise

to do so gives them additional flexibility to do their jobs. It also reinforces

boards' autonomy, better reflecting their role and range of responsibilities.

Naturally,

boards will continue to operate within the financial and accountability

frameworks established by government. I must also stress that the labour

relations framework for all public colleges, university colleges and institutes

will remain unchanged. The existing personnel relations provisions of the

College and Institute Act will continue to be applied to public colleges,

university colleges and other institutes but will not be applied to BCIT.

Instead, the unique personnel relationship provisions of the Institute of

Technology Act will be added to the College and Institute Act and will pertain

solely to BCIT, preserving BCIT's existing personnel relations environment.

Similarly,

provisions relating to representation of faculty and students on boards and

education councils are not affected by these amendments. Nor will these

amendments have any impact on student associations.

Throughout

our review we looked very carefully at the language contained in the acts. We

noted in the Institute of Technology Act that BCIT's purpose is described as

providing, maintaining and operating buildings, equipment, facilities and

services, and providing courses of instruction in technological and vocational

matters and subjects. But this description has not kept pace with BCIT's

development over the past few decades. It doesn't reflect the institution that

BCIT is today.

With the

amendments of Bill 26, we're formalizing recognition of BCIT's role within our

post-secondary system as a polytechnic institution providing courses of

instruction in technological and vocational matters and subjects, and offering

baccalaureate and applied degrees.

These

amendments fall within our three-year service plan to cut and eliminate red tape

and to build a more efficient and integrated post-secondary system. They are

consistent with our government's new-era commitments to remove unnecessary

legislation and regulations that impede the efficient and effective delivery of

services. They signal our confidence in the ability of institutions to make wise

management decisions and to operate in a way that puts students first — a

principle that is of first importance both to my ministry and to this

government.

Motion

approved.

Hon. S.

Bond: I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be

considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 26,

College and Institute Amendment Act, 2004, read a second time and referred to a

Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Hon. R.

Coleman: I now call second reading of Bill 27.

AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004

Hon. G.

Abbott: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

[1505]

The

Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management proposes amendments to the

Agricultural Land Commission Act. This bill reflects government's commitments to

expedite treaty settlements with first nations and to provide them with

abilities and obligations similar in character to those of local governments.

The purpose

of the proposed amendments is to allow first nations who are involved in treaty

negotiations or who have signed treaties a direct method of applying for changes

to the agricultural land reserves that are in the final treaty settlement lands.

The Agricultural Land Commission Act currently requires first nations in the

treaty process or those with treaty settlement land to obtain the approval of a

local government before making an application to the Agricultural Land

Commission.

The

proposed amendments to the act would enable first nations to apply directly to

the commission for approvals on ALR lands located within proposed and final

treaty settlement lands. First nations will be required to provide public notice

and, where required by the regulation, to hold a public hearing for proposed

changes within the agricultural land reserve. These obligations are similar to

those that apply to local governments and landowners currently.

These

amendments do not affect the decision-making process of the commission. The

commission will consider these first nation applications in the same manner as

applications from local governments and landowners. A decision of the commission

under the proposed amendments would not take effect until a final treaty

agreement has been reached and the first nation passes a law enacting the

commission's decision.

[ Page 10584 ]

These

amendments will provide treaty negotiators with the necessary tools to bring

information forward about allowable uses on land of interest to the first

nations. This will assist the negotiators in reaching a final treaty settlement

suitable to all parties. Treaty settlements, in turn, will encourage investment

within the province by providing greater land use certainty and will benefit all

British Columbians.

Mr.

Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to move second reading.

Halsey-Brandt: I wish to speak briefly on this bill this afternoon. I

certainly concur with one part of the bill, but I do express concern with

another portion.

I assume

that the first nations reserves in British Columbia are not subject to the Land

Commission Act and regulations at the present time. That legislation is

provincial, and the first nations reserves are federally regulated. Of course,

with the treaty process that we are now engaged in with the first nations bands

and as part of the treaty settlement, the bands may receive additional lands.

Some of that property outside their existing reserves may be, at the present

time, subject to the agricultural land reserve.

As I

understand it, these lands as treaty settlement lands will be turned over to the

first nations as part of the treaty, as fee simple lands rather than reserve

status lands. Therefore, if they are covered by the Agricultural Land Commission

regulations, then they will be subject to those uses. The bands, in order to

take them out of the Agricultural Land Commission if they so wish, will have to

go through the existing municipality they're in at the present time.

The part of

the legislation that talks about when the treaties are finally made with our

first nations bands, where they can apply directly to the Agricultural Land

Commission, I think is a great step forward, and I certainly agree with that

portion of the legislation. What I'm a little concerned about this afternoon —

I hope the minister can perhaps expand on this during committee stage of the

bill — is the part that allows first nations the ability to apply directly to

the Agricultural Land Commission to remove land from the land reserve at the

agreement-in-principle stage.

I say this

because I think it creates two problems for the people of British Columbia. One

is, of course, the tremendous expectations and pressures that we put on the

commissioners of the agricultural land reserve, because whether a treaty may

succeed or fail, in fact, may be based on the decision they render. I think that

is really not fair.

The second

part is that the treaty process, in dealing with first nations, has spanned a

number of years, and all the players at certain stages are aware in terms of

openness of what lands are subject to discussion for addition to reserves as

treaty settlement lands. All the surrounding citizens know that.

[1510]

The people

know of the status of those lands at the time the negotiations take place.

Therefore, to get to the agreement-in-principle stage and suddenly property

changes in terms of whether it's in the ALR or not in the ALR, I think is

unreasonable expectation to put on the surrounding community. They believe that

they're in the agricultural land reserve. They will continue to be in the

agricultural land reserve after a treaty is settled, and the first nations could

certainly then apply to the Agricultural Land Commission. But everyone knew they

were in the reserve leading up to it.

So I have

some concerns around that part of the act, and I look forward to committee stage

when we can address those and hopefully clarify that with the minister.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Abbott: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House

to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 27,

Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2004, read a second time and

referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting

of the House after today.

Hon. R.

Coleman: I call second reading of Bill 34.

PROVINCIAL REVENUE STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004

Hon. R.

Thorpe: I move that Bill 34 be read a second time.

This bill

proposes a number of amendments to taxation and revenue statutes administered by

the Ministry of Provincial Revenue. The measures included in this bill will help

achieve our goals of fair, efficient and equitable administration of taxation

and collection of outstanding moneys due to British Columbians.

The Hotel

Room Tax Act, the Motor Fuel Tax Act, the Social Service Tax Act and the Tobacco

Tax Act are amended to add directors' liability provisions where due diligence

has not been exercised. This is about providing protection to British Columbia

taxpayers. Under these provisions, directors of a corporation who have

discharged their duties without due diligence may be held responsible for the

corporation's failure to collect or remit taxes or pay security if the directors

have not ensured that the corporation met its obligations. The federal

government and all other provinces except Newfoundland have similar due

diligence provisions.

Amendments

are proposed to the Corporation Capital Tax Act and Income Tax Act to allow the

province to respond to tax adjustments made by other jurisdictions that have an

impact on British Columbians. The amendments will allow the province to issue

reassessments of taxation within one year of another province or federal

government adjusting corporation taxes in that jurisdiction. This amendment

protects British Columbians from the potential for double taxation and ensures

that British Columbia receives all of the tax amounts due under the legislation.

[ Page 10585 ]

Waiver

provisions are proposed for the Insurance Premium Tax Act and Mineral Tax Act.

These provisions allow taxpayers to request a waiver of the six-year assessment

limitation period in order to refute a proposed tax assessment. Waiver

provisions were introduced last year for other taxation statutes.

addition, a number of housekeeping amendments are proposed in this bill.

Amendments to the Income Tax Act will align the act with parallel provisions in

the federal Income Tax Act. Similar amendments are required each year to

accommodate changes in the federal legislation. Amendments to the Property

Transfer Act clarify that where improvements straddle multiple land parcels, the

parcels must be treated as a single parcel under the act.

Amendments

to the Corporation Capital Tax Act ensure that the revenue is protected from tax

planning undertaken for the sole purpose of tax avoidance. The Insurance Premium

Tax Act is amended to authorize information-sharing agreements with the

Financial Institutions Commission. This amendment facilitates the administration

of the act.

The Mineral

Land Tax Act is amended to remove an outdated statutory requirement and to allow

for electronic transmission of tax notices. Amendments to the Land Tax Deferment

Act and the Taxation (Rural Area)Act remove spent provisions and update terms

and

definitions to streamline property tax administration.

Finally,

amendments are proposed to make longstanding tax applications explicit to ensure

the clarity and transparency of statutes to the taxpayers of British Columbia.

The Social Service Tax Act is amended to clarify tax that does not apply to

lease tangible personal property acquired by a lessor solely for the purpose of

releasing it to others.

[1515]

The Motor

Fuel Tax Act is amended to clarify that all fuel in excess of 182 litres brought

into the province in the supply tank or supplemental tanks of a motor vehicle is

subject to tax. The Insurance Premium Tax Act is amended to explicitly exclude

commercial marine insurance contracts other than pleasure craft insurance from

tax. This is consistent with the original intent of the act.

The

amendments proposed in this bill are consistent with our government's commitment

to ensure fair, consistent and efficient treatment of taxation and revenue

collection processes. I move second reading of Bill 34.

Motion

approved.

Hon. R.

Thorpe: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House

to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 34,

Provincial Revenue Statutes Amendment Act, 2004, read a second time and referred

to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the

House after today.

Hon. R.

Coleman: I now call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we

will be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Attorney General and Minister

Responsible for Treaty Negotiations.

Committee of Supply

The House

in Committee of Supply B; K. Stewart in the chair.

The

committee met at 3:17 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

ATTORNEY GENERAL AND MINISTRY

RESPONSIBLE FOR TREATY NEGOTIATIONS

On vote 11:

ministry operations, $370,749,000.

Hon. G.

Plant: By agreement, I understand we will be proceeding first with the

estimates for the treaty negotiations office, one of the two ministerial

responsibilities that I am privileged to have.

I am joined

in the chamber by some people from the ministry who will probably need to help

me from time to time deal with matters, including Lorne Brownsey, the deputy

minister of the treaty negotiations office; Mike Furey, who is the assistant

deputy minister of the treaty negotiations office; and Jim Crone, who is the

assistant deputy minister responsible for management services in both

ministries, the Attorney General and treaty negotiations office as well as the

Solicitor General. I'm also joined and helped by Ingrid Fee, who is the director

of corporate services for the treaty negotiations office.

It is an

important year in the treaty process of British Columbia — a year filled with

opportunity but, as I think is no surprise to people who follow activities in

this file, a year also filled with challenge. We find ourselves in this year at

an unprecedented stage in the treaty process. We are now negotiating final

agreements at four different tables in the treaty process across British

Columbia. For the first time we are within reach of final agreements at tables

in four different parts of the province.

I think it

is probably high time that we reached that stage. But I am very excited about

the opportunity presented by that stage of progress to actually prove to the

public of British Columbia that the treaty process can produce success stories

and that through the treaty process, we will achieve agreements that will build

recognition, will build reconciliation and will build arrangements founded on

trust and mutual respect. As we construct arrangements through treaty

negotiations, we will build the certainty that is needed to make progress in

developing the lands and resources of the province.

[1520]

For far too

long we have been held back as a province by our failure to resolve these

long-outstanding issues. They are part of our history. Our failure to resolve

them is part of our history. They are part of the

[ Page 10586 ]

moral landscape of British Columbia, and our failure to resolve these issues

is part of the moral landscape of British Columbia.

As we have

wrestled with these challenges over decades — over, really, 133 years of our

history as a province, a history more often characterized by denial than

recognition — we have sometimes lost sight of the fact that in failing to

resolve these long-outstanding issues, we have also held back our development as

a province economically. Certainly, that has become true and more true in the

years since the enactment, as part of the constitutional reforms in 1982, of

section 35(1) of the Constitution Act of 1982 which, as members in this chamber

know, is a statement of recognition and affirmation of the existing aboriginal

and treaty rights of the aboriginal people of Canada.

That

recognition and affirmation, contained as it is in a constitutional document, is

far more than a political statement. Over the last dozen years and more, the

courts have said very clearly to governments, the private sector and first

nations that the recognition and affirmation of aboriginal rights and title in

the constitution is a statement that has legal as well as political

consequences.

We know

that aboriginal rights and title exist, we know they exist across the landscape

of the province, and we know that their existence poses and imposes obligations

on governments. But there are lots of things, too many things, we don't know

about aboriginal rights and title. There is no book, like a land registry

office, that you can go to and punch a button and find out with certainty

exactly who has which aboriginal rights or the location in precise terms of

aboriginal title and, indeed, who holds aboriginal title. We don't know exactly

— in fact, we really don't even know very much yet at all — about the

precise dimensions of the relationship between aboriginal rights and title, on

the one hand, and Crown rights and third-party rights and title on the other.

We do know

that these rights exist, and we do know that they have to exist somehow together

on the same landscape. I think it was Chief Justice Lamer who said, in the

famous last words of his judgment in the Supreme Court of Canada decision in

Delgamuukw: "Let's face it. We're all here to stay." Those were his

words. We don't know yet enough about the details of the interaction of those

rights, and we certainly don't know very much about the details of the

interaction of those many rights on a case-by-case basis, on a parcel-by-parcel

basis, on a hectare-by-hectare basis across the landscape of British Columbia.

There are

different ways to achieve the certainty that would come from resolving those

questions. One path is certainly litigation. It's a path that has been followed.

It's a path that continues to be followed in the courts today. The other path

— and, I think, the better path — is the path of negotiation. When you

negotiate, when you sit at a table voluntarily, committed to try to resolve

issues, you have the ability and the opportunity to shape a future that works

for you and for the others with whom you are negotiating. The treaty process is

fundamentally about negotiation to achieve certainty around who has what rights;

to achieve certainty about what those rights mean, who has what obligations and

what processes will be followed in decision-making. Through that certainty, I am

convinced that we will free up stranded assets across the province, that we will

find ways to develop economic opportunities that will provide benefits for first

nations and for all British Columbians, and that we will find that the province

becomes a bigger, stronger, healthier, more prosperous place with treaty

settlements than it has been without treaty settlements.

[1525]

It's been a

challenge over the last dozen years to get us to this point, and I freely

acknowledge that we've spent a lot of money. A lot of tax dollars have been

spent. First nations have borrowed hundreds of millions of dollars by this point

— certainly in the tens of millions of dollars — across this province as

they have worked to support their own efforts at treaty tables and as all three

parties at each of the tables around the province have done the detailed work of

trying to sort out the issues and reach agreement on the framework that is most

appropriate at that table for resolving the issues. We've certainly been at it a

while, and we've spent a lot of money, but now, at last, I think we are close to

breakthrough successes.

Over the

last year, in keeping with the direction that I was given by the Premier, by

cabinet and by the government caucus, we worked hard to see if we could get to

agreement-in-principle at about half a dozen tables around the province. We

looked strategically for opportunities for success. I think we did that work

well. As a result of that work and the commitment and effort by first nations

negotiators at tables around the province, and also the commitment and effort by

those tables, and we're close at a fifth table.

We achieved

agreement-in-principle, and we are now negotiating final agreements at tables in

the Powell River area with the Sliammon first nation, in the lower mainland with

the Tsawwassen first nation, in the Prince George area with the Lheidli-T'enneh

first nation and on the west coast of Vancouver Island with five Nuu-chah-nulth

first nations who call themselves the Maa-nulth.

We have an

initialled agreement. That is a document that has been initialled and

recommended by the negotiators for the three parties at the Snuneymuxw table in

Nanaimo. But if that particular table, the Snuneymuxw first nation, aren't ready

yet to make the decision about whether they support that

agreement-in-principle…. While I would love to take that step forward to

secure their agreement, that is a decision for that community, the Snuneymuxw

community. We will wait for them to make that decision and to make it in their

own time.

But with

that exception, we've got four tables where we are working towards final

agreements. I have said over the last few weeks, when I have been

[ Page 10587 ]

travelling around the province, that I'd like nothing better than to go and

travel around the province a year from now and report that we actually achieved

final agreements at some or all of those four tables.

That is a

very high-level outline of the work we've been doing to try to achieve what I

would describe as pretty much the central mandate of the treaty negotiations

office. But we've done more than that to build certainty, to help make a

difference in the lives of aboriginal people in British Columbia, to help create

economic opportunities and to help build strong relationships. In particular,

over the last two years, following a throne speech commitment and under the

leadership of the Premier, we've worked hard to fund economic development

opportunities across the province for first nations both inside and outside the

treaty process. We have looked across the landscape of the province for

opportunities to work with first nations where they have some idea, some vision

of what they want to achieve for their own communities but are held back because

— as is all too often the case — they may lack the training or they may not

have within their community the resources to put together a business plan or to

fund a feasibility study. They may simply need a bit of work to try to create

the opportunity for a partnership with a private sector company.

There is a

whole host of things we can do as a government, and have been doing as a

government, to try to level the playing field, to open up opportunities for

first nations. Indeed, over the last two years as a government, under the

administration of this ministry, we have now funded and supported something like

145 different projects around the province, representing $26.3 million of

provincial commitment, to try to make a difference in the lives of first

nations, to try to give them a sense of hope and optimism about the potential

that they have, and to try to see how it is possible for first nations economic

development to work hand-in-hand with economic development for the rest of the

province.

[1530]

That is

again consistent with the theme, the Premier's consistent message, that we can

make a difference in aboriginal lives now. We do so not just because we want to

help make a difference in aboriginal lives but because as we open up

opportunities for first nations, we open up opportunities for all British

Columbians.

Let me just

tell a couple of stories about a couple of these initiatives that I think are

important and exciting and connected with other initiatives we have undertaken

as a government. Last week I had the opportunity, along with my colleague the

Minister of State for Mining, to visit the small community of Yekooche. Yekooche

is located about 90 kilometres down a logging road, west of the small town of

Fort St. James, on the northwest arm of Stewart Lake. It's a long way away from

downtown Vancouver.

It's a

community of people that have been there, living on the land and trying to find

a future for themselves, for a very long time. It is also a community that's

been beset by trouble for a very long time. It was an amazing thing for my

colleague and I to visit this community. I think we may have been the first

cabinet ministers ever to visit this community. Half the town turned out. We had

a wonderful lunch in the gym, we saw kids singing and dancing, and we had a

great chance to tour the town.

This is a

community that has a pretty troubled history. Not very long ago, in a community

of 170 or 180 people, 30 of their children were kids in the care of the

ministry. Not very long ago it wasn't a very safe place to walk down the main

street because there really wasn't much in the way of civil order in this

community. So over time — recent time — governments, including this

government, have tried to help turn that around.

We put a

police officer in place in the community. The presence of a police officer has

helped create a sense of order and civil stability in the community. There are

now social worker services available more than was the case not so very long ago

in that community. Houses have been built. In the very recent past, 30 new

houses have been built in that community. As I had a walk up and down the main

street of the village, the woman who is a member of the band council and was

escorting me pointed to a house that I would think could be accurately described

as a modest house by the standards of almost any suburb in British Columbia. Yet

not so very long ago it was a little house where 25 people tried to live

together under one roof — not very adequate for the twenty-first century in

Canada.

This is a

community that has decided to seize its own agenda, to seize its own future, and

they are actually making great progress. They were virtually bankrupt just a few

years ago. They're now making great progress in the treaty process. Here is what

is interesting, in addition to all of that, about the little village of Yekooche.

In addition to all the other trouble this community has faced, it sits right in

the heart of the beetle-kill problem. There has been extensive logging that has

taken place over the years, and unfortunately most of the forest resources in

the area they claim as their traditional territory are at risk of further

damage, if not destruction, by the continued expansion of the mountain pine

beetle.

Rather than

sit back and await that calamity passively, this is a community that has decided

to re-shift its economic focus. One of the things I was there with my colleague

the Minister of State for Mining to announce was the fact that through our

economic development funding, we made available $200,000 to that community to

help train ten members of that community as prospectors, because they may be

surrounded by a forest in trouble, but they're also surrounded by lands that

have tremendous mineral potential.

We have

helped support these people to rethink and refocus their energy into a new

direction that may create all kinds of opportunity for them in the future.

That's some of the work we have been able to do with the economic development

funding. That's just one of the 145 projects that have been funded over the last

couple of years through the treaty negotiations office.

[ Page 10588 ]

[1535]

Another

example — and the only one I will trouble you with now, Mr. Chair — is a

little closer to your community, but not that close yet. It's the community of

Yale, a little town just a few miles up the Fraser River from Hope, which

generations of British Columbia school kids have been taught was the head of

navigation in the Fraser River. It's the place where gold was discovered in 1858

to launch the gold rush that was really the beginning of the political history

of what became the province of British Columbia, because it was the mainland

colony that was established as a result of the gold rush.

Of course,

that is also the home of the Yale first nation. In fact, the place where gold

was discovered in 1858 is called Hills Bar. Hills Bar lies pretty much at the

heart of the asserted traditional territory of the Yale first nation. It's the

area that they have identified in treaty negotiations as most important to them

in land selection, but it is also an area where there are and have been mineral

licences, mineral tenure, granted over time — in particular, tenure that

would, if allowed to develop and mature through government processes, allow a

gravel mining operation to take place.

What we

have is the standard recipe for paralysis in British Columbia — the potential

of a conflict between the assertion of aboriginal rights and title at the heart

of a traditional territory, where no doubt there is the issue of the potential

of archaeological sites and those sorts of things, with the fact that there are

some private sector people who very much want the opportunity to develop some

resources that they think are there on that territory.

So what we

have done as a government, partly to respond to the progress that's being made

at the treaty table and partly to assist in resolving in a constructive way this

potential for conflict, is that we have — among other things — protected the

Hills Bar land by using various statutory mechanisms to assure that the land

will be there at the end of the day when we get the final agreement at the Yale

first nation table. We have also, through economic development funding, helped

create a situation where the first nation and the private sector mining company

have begun to work in a joint venture which I hope will be perfected over time

and, assuming that the environmental assessment processes can be completed

satisfactorily, will in fact result in — I hope will result in — the

development and exploitation of a gravel mine on Hills Bar.

Let me just

say a little bit about what that means. The proven reserves of gravel in the

Hills Bar deposit exceed half a billion tonnes of gravel. You don't have to pay

very much attention to roadbuilding in the lower mainland of British Columbia to

know that, in fact, we're starting to have a bit of a challenge in finding

enough gravel and aggregate material to supply the roadbuilding needs in the

lower mainland.

Hills Bar

is actually on the right side of the river — that is, it's on the correct side

of the river. It's on the downhill side of the river for the railway coming into

town, coming from the interior into Vancouver. If we can develop the gravel

resources on Hills Bar and put them on the railcars, they can be shipped into

the lower mainland where we will have all the gravel we need to build roads in

the future. Indeed, that gravel will be available to be shipped for a profit to

California — a tremendous opportunity for the people of the Yale first nation,

for jobs for that community, for jobs for the neighbouring communities in which

they live and who knows what opportunity for economic development for all people

who live in the lower mainland.

Now, those

are a couple of stories that take a little bit longer to tell than might

ordinarily be the case, but I think that as we do this work as government, the

best way to measure progress is by looking at the success stories that exist and

by understanding the opportunities that we are starting to create.

[1540]

Are there

challenges? There are indeed. There will continue to be challenges. A third of

first nations in British Columbia are not in the treaty process. It continues to

be a challenge to create relationships with those first nations that allow us to

work together in an atmosphere of mutual trust and respect, but we are going to

continue to try. There are some tables where although they're formally part of

the treaty process, we are not making much progress in the treaty process. I

acknowledge that we have challenges there. But this is a great year for

treaty-making in British Columbia, a year where I think we are going to be able

to show that success is possible and that we can reach final agreements. I look

forward to the opportunity to discuss these issues in this portion of the

estimates debate.

The

Chair: Just prior to giving the floor to the member for Vancouver–Mount

Pleasant, I must add that there is a lot of speculation up in Yale about the

gold content in Hills Bar too, so there's another potential there. I just

thought I'd add that in. [Laughter.]

J. Kwan:

I would almost say that would be taking advantage of the Chair's position as the

Chair to put that comment in, but anyway, we'll let it go.

I do want

to put this opening statement forward, and I understand that the member for

Bulkley Valley–Stikine may have some questions for the minister. To facilitate

the government members' opportunity to ask some questions of the minister, I

will yield the floor first to him, but I want to put this on record.

When he

opened, the Attorney General said that by agreement, the opposition is going to

canvass the treaty negotiations office issues first with the minister. I want to

put this on record: there was no contact from anybody from the government side

with respect to that. The member for Chilliwack-Kent, who is the MA to the

Minister of Finance, didn't contact us with respect to what issues were to be

brought up. In fact, it wasn't my intention, when I came up, to begin the

estimates debate with this issue.

I do want

to say that things change continually, and we're always just on alert in terms

of what issues and what area to begin with in our debates with the gov-

[ Page 10589 ]

ernment side. I want to put that on record, but with that, I will certainly

be asking the minister many questions in this area amongst other areas as well.

But as I said, the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine would like to canvass

some questions with the minister, and I am first going to yield the floor to

him.

MacKay: To the Attorney General, I'm going to deal first of all, obviously,

on the treaty negotiation side of his ministry. I have several questions that

have been brought to my attention by constituents, and I would like to stress

the fact that the issues I'm going to bring up today are, in fact, issues that

have been brought to me by constituents. Although I share some of the same

sentiments my constituents do, these issues are coming from constituents.

I would

just like to set the tone for my questions I'm going to be asking the minister

today as we relate to the treaty negotiations side of his ministry. The first

thing I'm going to do is go into his estimates manual and look at page 42,

dealing with the operating expense for the treaty negotiations office. I notice

that under the '04-05 estimates, we're actually seeing a decrease in the net

amount of money, but I notice external recoveries at $830,000. I wonder if the

minister could explain to me the recovery of $830,000. How was that achieved?

[1545]

Hon. G.

Plant: I'm informed that some or all of that money relates to the commitment

in the Nisga'a final agreement that, in effect, the Nisga'a would be saved

harmless in respect of the prospective revenue to them from tree harvesting

operations on their territory over a transitional period. Because of a decline

in the value of the resources, there was less call on that money — so less

that we've had to pay out. That apparently translates its way, through the magic

of accounting, into the presentation of that number there.

MacKay: If I understand, the $830,000 was related to the Nisga'a treaty. I

notice from the nodding of the head that was a yes. Thank you, minister.

I 'd like

to take you to page 45 now, in the same manual. I wonder if the minister could

explain this to me. This is on page 45, under the "Voted Appropriations

Description." It says the subvote "provides for strategic management

and direction of the office, including a deputy minister's office, the

province's participation in the negotiation of treaties and other arrangements

with first nations and the federal government, including consultation with third

parties and others…." Who is captured in the word "others"?

Hon. G.

Plant: The phrase "consultation with third parties and others" is,

I think, a compendious phrase intended to take into account the fact that the

treaty negotiations office supports, sometimes through funding, consultation

efforts with local governments, with some business and community associations.

An example would be that in the case of the Lheidli-T'enneh treaty table, we

have supported a treaty advisory committee in the Prince George regional

district. I'm told that in '03-04 there were over 80 stakeholder meetings for

provincewide and other consultations, including meetings with the UBCM

executive, local chambers of commerce, the B.C. Woodlot Associations, the B.C.

Utilities Advisory Council, the B.C. Wildlife Federation and the Council of

Forest Industries. Presumably there were others.

MacKay: Based on the answer, then, I'm assuming that the funds were in fact

allocated for municipalities to attend negotiating tables. Is that the…?

Hon. G.

Plant: These are process dollars. They're provided to support the

consultation work that the ministry does with the groups that I referred to in

my last answer, although we do support some initiatives at some of the lead

tables to ensure that local governments and community groups can — with a

minimum of their own expense — participate meaningfully in consultation with

us about the issues that are important to them.

MacKay: Again on page 45, looking at the economic development fund at $10

million…. Is that a one-time fund that has been set aside for economic

development opportunities for the natives? Is it a one-time fund?

[1550]

Hon. G.

Plant: It was a three-year fund, and there was, I think, $10 million in

'02-03. Then the member has in front of him the $10 million figure for '03-04

and the $7 million figure for '04-05. At present it is not anticipated that the

fund will continue.

MacKay: You may have answered my next question. The decrease from $10

million to $7 million doesn't indicate the expenditures of roughly $3 million.

This is an additional $7 million that was added to the economic development

fund.

Hon. G.

Plant: The original intention was to create a three-year fund totalling $30

million, and we certainly were able to set aside the $10 million in the first

year and the $10 million in the second year. As part of the budgeting process

leading up to the budget for the year '04-05, we as government made some

decisions to continue to pursue our shared collective goal of balancing the

budget in '04-05. One of the decisions we made was that we would reduce the

prospective amount available in this fund to $7.042 million. That's the total

amount available for expenditure in this fund in the current fiscal year. I

should say that I believe pretty much all of it is now committed to existing

projects.

MacKay: Given the fact that we're into our third year then, when this $7

million has been spent, what happens when the fund goes dry? Is that it? Is

there

[ Page 10590 ]

any more money going to be put into this economic development fund?

[J.

Weisbeck in the chair.]

Hon. G.

Plant: Let me say that I'm going to continue to work hard to do what I can

to help the government find the fiscal resources to support this kind of work,

but at present there are no plans to continue this past the current fiscal year.

It may be

helpful to the member in terms of understanding how this operates that I

actually referred to the fund in my opening comments, when I said we had funded

about 145 projects worth more than $26 million. These are all discrete projects.

They're one-time projects. Some of them may be multi-year projects, but they are

discrete. They are finite. They are project agreements entered into that have a

beginning and an end date. They are not kind of ongoing operating funding for

activities; they are much more project-based. What's happening now is that we

are essentially winding up the projects that we had previously committed funding

for.

MacKay: In those funds that are provided to the natives for their economic

opportunities in the province, what accountability provisions have been built

into that? Does anybody check to see if, in fact, the money has been well spent

and if we're getting what we thought we would get from the money that is being

provided?

Hon. G.

Plant: Each of the projects is funded by means of an agreement, and some of

the agreements are pretty comprehensive. They all contain time lines, they all

contain expected outcomes, and they connect the expected outcomes to time lines.

There is performance measurement built into the contracts. Many of the contracts

are funded on a staged or phased basis, where in order to get the second or the

third tranche of money, you've got to actually be able to satisfy that you have

done everything you were required to do in the first stage.

We have

been subject to audits, and I think there is a manager in the ministry with

specific project responsibility around this initiative. We have been working

hard to ensure that I can be in a position to answer questions about performance

measurement and about accountability, like the kinds of questions the member

just asked.

MacKay: Based on the last two years, then what is our success rate? Do we

have a success rate and a failure rate? Do you know what those are?

[1555]

Hon. G.

Plant: I don't think we have yet had a comprehensive review done of the

projects as a whole, but if you go back to what I was saying earlier about what

we were trying to do with some of these projects, it's easy to measure some kind

of success. For example, in Campbell River we funded an engineering feasibility

study concerning the possibility of building a cruise ship facility in Campbell

River just immediately adjacent to the Campbell River Indian reserve in downtown

Campbell River. The work was done, the feasibility study was completed, and the

Campbell River Indian band has done extensive work with the federal government.

I'm afraid I don't know what the status of that project is at the moment, but

they've certainly done a lot of work over the years to try to encourage the

federal government to assist in funding the actual construction of the dock,

which would be — as I recall — a $3 million project.

We've done

projects where we have trained first nations in doing guide and outfitting work,

and the net result of that is that we have actually provided the training of ten

or 15 first nations people in one of these projects. The objective was to give

young aboriginal people the training that they would need to participate in an

industry.

The same

thing in tourism. I participated in an announcement involving shellfish

aquaculture with the Halalt first nation, who want to expand their involvement

in shellfish aquaculture in the Ladysmith-Crofton area of Vancouver Island. One

of the parts of that project was to introduce some young people in that

community to what it means to work in shellfish aquaculture, give them

instruction in things like marine first aid, how to operate boats and all that

stuff.

We've done

work that includes irrigation projects where people have…. Well, here's

another example of a project that we funded. In Shuswap Indian band we helped

fund the construction of a concrete groundwater reservoir. That was unusual in

that the dollars in that project went to actually build something. I was there.

It was pretty much nearly built the day I was there with the MLA for Columbia

River–Revelstoke, and I'm sure if it wasn't finished soon thereafter, it's

been finished.

On a

case-by-case basis we have had some of the successes that we want, for sure, and

some of the projects are still underway. It will be a while yet before we know

if the investment that we've made makes the difference that we were hoping it

would make.

MacKay: Just to go back to the guide-outfitting school that the minister

spoke about, I understand from speaking to people in my part of the province

that that in fact was a great success story and did provide employment

opportunities for a number of young native people who attended that program. Do

you know what the status of the funding is for that school? Did the money come

from the economic development fund, or where did it come from for that training?

Hon. G.

Plant: I'm told the funding for that initiative did come from what we called

the economic measures fund. We have had some discussions with the Guide

Outfitters Association people who, I believe, have expressed a desire that the

project or the work continue to be funded. We have told them we don't

[ Page 10591 ]

have the money beyond where we're at now, but that we are going to continue

to look and see if we can find some opportunities to continue to support that

work.

MacKay: Well, that is encouraging, given the fact that I know this project

is working. The funding was being well spent, and it was creating employment

opportunities for the natives in the province, so I'm glad to hear that we're

looking at finding ways to find money to continue with that program. I'm pleased

to hear that. Obviously, the funding for this year has dried up, but for next

year you're looking, and if we can find the money, it will be there for them.

[1600]

The next

thing I would like to do, Mr. Chair, is look at the budget and fiscal plan. I

would like to draw your attention to page 48. I have a question there that

causes me some concern. That's under "Treaty Negotiations" in the

manual. It talks about: "The government is committed to negotiating

affordable, workable treaties with first nations that provide certainty

regarding ownership and use of provincial Crown land and resources."

It's the

final line in that paragraph that causes me some concern. It says that the

outcomes of negotiations could affect the economic outlook and the fiscal plan.

Now, are we talking about the economic outlook and the fiscal plan for the

province? If so, that leaves me with the perhaps misunderstood idea that we have

actually conceded ownership of the land, if in fact that is my

interpretation of

that last line in that paragraph. I wonder if the minister could respond to

that.

Hon. G.

Plant: The

section the member is referring to is, as the member says, part

of the budget and fiscal plan document. It appears to be a paragraph in a fairly

long

section of that document called "Part One: Three-Year Fiscal

Plan." What I see in these pages are some general topics that I think could

fairly be described as risks to achieving our province's fiscal objectives —

risks in some cases combined with opportunities. For example, the

section right

below "Treaty Negotiations" is "Catastrophes and Disasters."

Then there is a

section called "Pending Litigation." Right in that

context, when I see the sentence the member refers to, I think I understand what

is intended by it. The sentence reads: "Outcomes of negotiations could

affect both the economic outlook and the fiscal plan."

There are a

number of elements of this. In very practical terms, as we get final agreements

in British Columbia, there will be an infusion of federal funds. Some of those

funds may flow to the province, and some may flow to first nations, and that

will have an impact on regional and provincial economies and also on

government's fiscal plans. As we succeed at treaty tables, we will achieve

certainty in respect of the issues of aboriginal rights and title and Crown

ownership of lands that I think will lead to increased investment and jobs. That

will produce downstream benefits, if you will, for the province in terms of

increased revenues. That's a good sign. On the other hand, I suppose it could be

said that if we don't have the success that I believe is possible, then we will

continue to face the spectre of litigation challenging provincial Crown resource

and management decisions.

When I was

speaking at the outset of the debate, I talked about the idea of stranded

assets. Clearly, when you look around the landscape of British Columbia, there

are lands and resources where we've not been able to develop in the way we would

like to develop those lands and resources because of court decisions and other

challenges. Those challenges continue, and as they continue, then our challenge

as a government in finding the revenues that we need to provide the services

that people expect from government will continue.

All of this

is really to say that this paragraph is about connecting the treaty process and

the treaty negotiations work to the general economic outlook of the province and

the specific fiscal circumstances of government.

[1605]

MacKay: Thank you for the clarification on that issue. I'd now like to take

the minister to his service plan and more particularly page 9 of the treaty

negotiations portion of the manual. On page 9, I would like to read a part here

where it says: "The courts have been clear that the Crown has a legal duty

to consult and accommodate first nations." I can't find anything in there

that says investors have a duty to consult and accommodate the natives. I just

wonder if in fact the minister agrees with what's written in the service plan

where it says: "The courts have been clear that the Crown…." I can't

find anything in there that says that investors have a duty to consult and

accommodate. I wonder if you could clarify that for me.

Hon. G.

Plant: The statement on page 9 of the service plan is correct, I think. It

says: "The courts have been clear that the Crown has a legal duty to

consult and accommodate first nations where their aboriginal rights may be

affected." The extent to which that statement represents a complete

statement of the law in this area is, I suppose, to some extent up in the air.

We know that the Court of Appeal of British Columbia has made some decisions

recently in cases like the Haida-Weyerhaeuser decision and the Taku River–Tlingit

decision, which reinforce the statement that I just quoted from. But we also

know that those Court of Appeal decisions have been appealed to the Supreme

Court of Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada has before it now the opportunity

to refine or change the law in this area with respect to government's

obligations.

I think the

member is right, though — and this may not have been his point, so I shouldn't

put words in his mouth — but it's certainly appropriate to talk about third

parties. In the Haida and Weyerhaeuser decision, the Court of Appeal said that

not only does the Crown have obligations to consult and accommodate but, in

certain circumstances, third parties also have those obligations. That issue,

that finding, is also the subject

[ Page 10592 ]

of the appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada in those cases. I believe the

party that was affected by that order directly, Weyerhaeuser, and some other

representatives of business interests in British Columbia have challenged that

finding in their arguments in the Supreme Court of Canada. We'll have to wait

and see what the Supreme Court of Canada says.

But in

outlining what we are trying to do as government through the treaty negotiations

office in helping to achieve certainty through the work of negotiations, I think

the intention here is to focus on what we are doing as government and what the

obligations are that lie on government, which may explain why there was no

express reference to any obligations that may exist for third parties.

MacKay: Like the minister, I look forward to the decision coming down from

the Supreme Court of Canada. I suspect that it will have a big impact on the

economic activity that will take place in British Columbia in the near future

and in future years, depending on what the outcome of that decision is.

Just to go

back to that same page, when I look at the revenue-sharing, I can't find

anything that says there's got to be revenue-sharing with investors in the

province of British Columbia with natives on their territorial land. I'm talking

about forestry stumpage, where I have contractors who are being asked to pay

additional stumpage to natives because they're on their traditional territory.

It's happening in the mining sector. It's happening in the oil and gas fields up

in the northeast part of this province where the natives have demanded

revenue-sharing with investors. I, for the life of me, am really perplexed at

where that allows the natives to hold investors at ransom as they develop the

province on permits that the province has issued.

I don't

know how we get around that. It starts in Alberta. It's happening in Alberta. I

can remember several years ago reading magazines about the revenue-sharing that

was being demanded by the natives in the province of Alberta. It's worked its

way out to British Columbia.

The

minister may not agree with this statement, but to me that's extortion. We as a

provincial government have issued permits to people to either cut trees down or

go into the mining sector or drill for oil and gas, and the natives are there

asking for revenue-sharing. I really have a problem understanding that.

I wonder if

the minister could explain why we allow that to happen based on the fact that

we're waiting for decisions from the Supreme Court of Canada. I'm really

confused about that.

[1610]

Hon. G.

Plant: Well, let me say a couple things that I hope will sort of get towards

an answer to that important question. First, the document we are looking at

doesn't purport to be a comprehensive overview of the law of aboriginal rights

and title. It really is intending to describe the core business areas of the

treaty negotiations office, so I think it has to be read from that perspective.

I think

it's right that the member reintroduces into this subject the fact that the

question of whether or not third parties may have legal obligations to consult

and/or accommodate where their activities may affect aboriginal rights and title

is before the Supreme Court of Canada. The general rule — and I think it

applies here — is that a decision of the Court of Appeal is the law unless and

until it's overturned by a higher court. So for the time being, the law in

British Columbia is that there are some circumstances where third parties have

obligation to consult and accommodate.

What we've

done as government is try to establish some principled policy frameworks for

introducing the idea of revenue-sharing into the land and resource business of

government. We've done that in a way that allows revenue-sharing, in the case of

some resource activities — mainly forests at this point, but also land and

some others — to be a part of discussions outside the treaty process and also

be the subject of negotiations in the treaty process. That, of course, relates

to our obligations or the work we voluntarily undertake to do as government.

I don't

condone some of what…. Let me start this way. I also spend a fair bit of time

talking to the business community and encouraging them to develop constructive

relationships with first nations, particularly in the areas where they are

active, because I think in the long run, building constructive relationships is

the best path to certainty. I think it goes back to those basic themes that I

was talking about earlier. As we all start to work together more effectively,

we're going to find that we'll discover opportunities we hardly even knew

existed.

What I

don't think the private sector has to do is make unprincipled payments as part

of the licence of access to Crown land and resources. What individual businesses

choose to do in their dealings with first nations are decisions more for those

businesses than they are for government.

I mean, I

think I share some of the member's frustration. I get a bit frustrated when I

hear about some things that — at least I'm told — are happening out there.

We responded at one point to some concerns we had in the oil and gas business by

making a really big effort on the part of government to create memoranda of

understanding with some of the Treaty 8 first nations to structure the

decision-making process around tenures and permits so we could, as government,

do our job in a disciplined way without having this sense that the private

sector was out there just cutting deals to do whatever it took to get the right

to drill a hole in the ground. I don't think that's in anybody's interests in

the long term.

[1615]

There is a

role for the private sector here. The law says there is a role for the private

sector now, but I think we do need to encourage — encourage, I guess, is the

right word — business and first nations to deal with each other as potential

business partners and not

[ Page 10593 ]

in some other, unprincipled way. I'm not sure what more help I can give the

member with respect to that issue.

MacKay: Just to follow up on the answer I got, then. Again, constituents are

coming to me and saying that we've basically given the natives a veto power.

I've got a couple of examples I could quote, but I'm going to refrain from

quoting them.

They're

actually holding up projects because the developer will not give them

compensation, because they happen to be in their traditional territory. When

they do interfere with the development process by way of roadblock, we as a

government, who have issued the permits to allow the development, ask the

developer to go to court for an injunction to stop the roadblock to allow them

to develop what we have issued permits for. I'm being told by the people I

represent that we've given them a veto power. I wonder why the province does not

assume the legal costs of court injunctions to stop illegal activity and to stop

development that's taking place in the province after we've issued permits.

Why does

the province not assume the legal responsibility for those illegal actions?

Hon. G.

Plant: I don't have the numbers here in front of me, but we actually do our

best to monitor the extent of blockades and other forms of unlawful activity

across the province. My sense is, and I think this is backed up by some numbers,

that over the past three years the incidence of blockades in the province —

blockades in which first nations issues are at the heart of the disobedience —

has declined. That's actually one of our service plan measures. We're going to

continue to make that so. So that's part of the answer.

In terms of

the specific question, generally speaking, the province has never — at least

as a matter of policy — funded third parties in these sorts of disputes. One

policy reason for that is that the government doesn't always have the ability to

control what third parties do when they're working to perfect their tenure or to

exercise their rights. It's not a good policy, I think, for the government to

sort of become an insurance company for the actions of private developers in

circumstances where we're not necessarily in control of what the private

developers are doing.

There's a

way out of the frustration. I think the way out of the frustration lies in

government's success in doing some of the work we've been doing in forestry, in

the forestry revenue-sharing agreements. There government has stepped up and

taken the leadership role and said that we will assume an obligation here, and

we enter into agreements with first nations. In those agreements, in exchange

for benefits in the form of dollars and sometimes fibre, the first nation

provides in return assurances that give us the certainty to know that forest

tenure rights will be respected, that cutting permits can be issued and acted

on. That really is a good policy framework to ensure that the private sector is

not subject to these sorts of off-line demands that the member's talking about,

but rather that everyone's working within a disciplined framework to ensure that

development can take place.

[1620]

If the

member has examples of particular projects where he or his constituents have

concerns about the kinds of demands that have been made by first nations, I'm

not sure whether our office could do much to help, but I'd sure offer to try. I

mean, I'd sure offer to sit down and have a look at a particular issue. I don't

think, though, that in the near future we are going to undertake to indemnify

third parties against the legal costs that they incur when they choose to or,

from their perspective, are forced to try to take action to remove blockades.

MacKay: If in fact we do sign off on memorandums of understanding to allow a

developer to proceed with a project and we do have these illegal activities

taking place, will the province then assume the legal responsibility if there's

an MOU in place?

Hon. G.

Plant: The government has not historically accepted that responsibility.

Quite often what we're talking about is activity that takes place on land over

which a private sector party has some rights, either a licence or a lease or

maybe even ownership. As a general rule, governments encourage the owners of

private property and related rights to take their own action to protect their

property rights from incursion by others. If someone were to trespass on my back

yard, the member could rightly argue that I own fee simple in my back yard and

that nobody else has the right to trespass on my back yard, so why shouldn't the

government intervene to help me get somebody out of my back yard?

The fact is

that generally speaking, governments don't do that. That isn't to say we aren't

willing to work hard in particular cases to try to get out of a problem. In the

first year after we took office, I spent countless hours working with the Sun

Peaks Resort Corp. and with some of the representatives of first nations in the

Shuswap tribal council to try to resolve some issues that were arising at Sun

Peaks around Sun Peaks's desire to expand their resort. I'm not sure how

successful those efforts were, but the resort expansion was undertaken and was

completed, and I think the resort has experienced growth. There has actually

been pretty much a complete disappearance of civil disobedience, and that

resulted from some pretty hard work by Sun Peaks and also by government.

I mean, I

think it's possible to work on these issues, at least from time to time. As I

say, if there are particular issues that arise, then I'm always willing to try

and look at them and see if there is some reason for government to do something

more than it might otherwise ordinarily do.

MacKay: I guess we could go around and around on that one for a while, but

I'd like to move on with some other issues I have that I'd like clarification

on. I'm looking at the service plan on page 8. I think

[ Page 10594 ]

we've already touched on the first question I want to ask. That was about the

economic development fund. It shows for '05-06 no funding and for '06-07 no

funding, so I think you've already answered that one for me.

Just going

down under "Resource

Summary" for ministry capital expenditures under

the treaty negotiations office, I notice there are some moneys being spent on

buildings, tenant improvement, land and land improvements for $300,000, and

vehicles, specialized equipment, office furniture and equipment. Is that

ministry staff, or is that being spent on the reserves?

Hon. G.

Plant: That's tenant improvements to the premises occupied by the ministry.

[1625]

MacKay: The last question on that page has to do with the receipts and

disbursements. I notice there are no receipts coming in, and there are some

disbursements going out. In '04-05 we're looking at $16 million, and it drops

down in '05-06 to $2 million and in '06-07 down to $1 million. Could you clarify

that for me?

Hon. G.

Plant: The funding for the disbursements element in the financing

transactions component of that chart is for Nisga'a final agreement capital

transfer payments and, apparently, forestry transition and implementation costs

— which I think relate to the Nisga'a final agreement — and also for the

acquisition of some lands in the treaty process where we hope to achieve final

agreements in the near future. As part of that process, we have looked at the

possibility of acquiring some lands on a willing seller, willing buyer basis.

MacKay: I'd just like to quote out of page 10 in the same manual, and I'm

going to get back to this later in my questions that I have for the minister,

Mr. Chair. Basically, the line says: "The government of British Columbia

has a responsibility to represent and protect the interests of all British

Columbians." I'm going to come back to that when I get into the questions

relating to the Westbank issue.

On page 13,

dealing with the core business areas, I'm a bit confused about the performance

measures. It's showing a target of 105 percent of the base data for '04-05 and

for '05-06, 110, and it goes up to 115. Could you explain that to me, please?

Hon. G.

Plant: The goal here is increased social and economic stability and

investment in the province for greater certainty over Crown lands and resources.

One of the key indicators would be increased access to Crown lands and resources

for economic development. So what we are trying to do is create a performance

measure that will allow us to report on the extent to which we are having

success in negotiating arrangements that provide certainty over the use of

provincial Crown land.

The first

step in this is to develop a baseline — that is, to try to develop a measure

for where we are now or where we were in '03-04. The actual base for '03-04 is a

figure yet to be determined. The numbers for each of the three succeeding years

represent, really, a commitment to increase the percentage of Crown land covered

by certainty agreements by 5 percent each year. Really, the first step is to try

and figure out where we are now, and then the commitment is to increase

certainty over the land base over the three years that are there in the columns

of the service plan.

MacKay: What is the base data? I don't understand that. What's that

established at, or how is it established?

[1630]

Hon. G.

Plant: That's what we're working on. Base data is the starting point. One of

the things we're looking at is: what are we going to say amounts to a certainty?

There are different ways of achieving certainty. Obviously, the final agreements

in the treaty process would represent a significant degree of certainty, but we

also get some certainty from other arrangements — everything from forestry

revenue-sharing agreements, land protection measures, sometimes even economic

development activity.

But to

illustrate the point by giving a concrete number, it's usually written somewhere

that the statement-of-intent area, the traditional territory claimed by the

Lheidli-T'enneh in their submission to the B.C. treaty process, is a land mass

of about 4.7 or 4.8 percent of the total land mass of British Columbia. We're

negotiating to achieve a final agreement at that table. There are some treaty

settlement lands that are part of that. Hopefully, we'll reach a point where

those lands are transferred to the Lheidli-T'enneh in a final agreement.

Also, what

we're going to do is achieve certainty over the total traditional territory of

the Lheidli-T'enneh or at least achieve certainty in respect of their claim to

it. I don't know the extent to which there may be some modest overlaps affecting

that, but what we're doing now is building the model that allows us to say:

"Here are the different ways in which we have certainty, the certainty that

we need to make land and resource decisions, knowing that there won't be any

disruption to the activities of licensees or leaseholders or tenure

holders." What we're really doing here is committing to increase that land

base over which we have certainty over time.

MacKay: I'm going to ask the minister some questions on the Westbank

agreement, which I must say causes some concern to myself, as did the Nisga'a

treaty when it was signed off. Before I get there, I'd just like to read an

e-mail. I'll ask the minister to sit back and listen while I read an e-mail that

I received from a constituent who lives in the Kispiox Valley. He says:

"In

the Kispiox Valley, where I live, the natives hunt and fish 12 months of the

year, not so much for food and ceremonial purposes as out of boredom. In

January alone

[ Page 10595 ]

there were over 40 moose killed in our small valley. Over 60

percent of these animals would be pregnant cows due to give birth in May. As

most moose have twins, this makes the kill total staggering for our small

herd.

"Under

the current system there is little or nothing the conservation officers can do

about it. The moose that make it through the winter…."

He goes on to describe the moose that do make it through the winter. They've

got some pretty tough times ahead of them. This is the part that really got my

attention. He says:

"It

is also the consensus of many that sustenance and ceremonial hunting is a way

of the past that should fade into the past. I recently witnessed two natives

sustenance-hunting in a $60,000 Suburban while towing a trailer with $15,000

worth of snowmobiles behind. I hardly think the king had this in mind when he

signed the Royal Proclamation of 1763."

I doubt if the 1763 proclamation had anything to do with the province of

British Columbia, but this is a misunderstanding on his part.

"Allowing

sustenance and ceremonial hunting opens the door to much abuse by others.

There are many non-natives that hunt out of season with native friends or

family using this guise, making enforcement of existing laws difficult. In the

non-native community the actions of a few result in restriction being enforced

on everyone else for the greater good. I don't think it's inappropriate to

expect the same standards to apply in the native community.

"The

same problem exists with fishing, most notably with winter steelhead fishing.

Whereas there are literally millions of sockeye salmon to catch and preserve

in the late summer, there are only a few thousand steelhead in the Kispiox

River. First nations people routinely catch and kill steelhead all winter

long. Again, these fish are the survivors, the strongest of the gene pool.

Again, conversations with local natives affirmed that it is boredom, not

necessity, that drives them to fish."

He goes on

and on. I just wanted to get the point across that the views that I'm presenting

here today are, in fact, the views of many of the people who live in the Bulkley

Valley–Stikine area that I represent. I can recall, as I mentioned, that the

Nisga'a treaty was one that I was opposed to. When I did a private citizen's

referendum poll on the Nisga'a treaty, more people voted in the poll than voted

in the municipal elections, which were held on the same date, and 94 percent of

the people opposed the Nisga'a treaty, albeit the closure was forced on this

Legislature by the NDP government. I wonder just how many people actually had a

chance to read the Nisga'a treaty and understand what was in that treaty. The

present minister probably read it, but most people probably didn't get a chance

to read it or understand what's in the Nisga'a treaty.

[1635]

When I look

at the Westbank issue, which I've been contacted on by a number of people, this

one is creating some concern for me as well, because it seems to be following in

the footsteps of the Nisga'a treaty. It's going to be entrenched in the

constitution. It started off as Bill C-57 and is now C-11, and I believe it is

before the Senate. It may even have been passed today. It's unfortunate that I

didn't get a chance to discuss this in further detail prior to that time.

When I read

out that statement about the province of British Columbia having a legal

responsibility to look after the interests of all British Columbians, I guess

it's the 8,000 non-native people who live on the Westbank reserve that cause me

some concern. That treaty, from my understanding, was between the federal

government and the 400 Westbank natives who live on that reserve.

My question

to the minister is: what, if anything, did we do as a province to intervene to

make sure that the interests of people living on the Westbank Indian reserve

were looked after? I understand the Charter of Rights and Freedoms,

section 35,

gives the aboriginal some rights, but

section 25 in the Charter basically

removes any protection under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for anything

that takes place on a reserve. I wonder if the province — if we as a

government — did anything to ensure that what was being done between the

federal government and the Westbank first nation people was okay with the

province of British Columbia. Did we look after the interests of those 8,000

non-native people that live on the reserve?

Hon. G.

Plant: Let me start by going back to the first part of the mem