2007 Legislative Session: Third Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 2007

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 25, Number 8

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Mabel Jean Rawlins-Brannan

C. James

Employment of persons with disabilities

D. Hayer

Elections in Ukraine

M. Farnworth

White ribbon campaign

J. Yap

Barbara Kohne

J. Horgan

Whistler Arts Council

J. McIntyre

Oral Questions

Utilization of MRI machine at St.

Paul's Hospital

C. James

Hon. G. Abbott

A. Dix

Resources for First Nations children and families

N. Simons

Hon. T. Christensen

Implementation of Hughes report

recommendations on child protection

M. Karagianis

Hon. T. Christensen

L. Krog

Government child care booklet

C. Trevena

Hon. L. Reid

M. Farnworth

Petitions

D. MacKay

Hon. C. Richmond

Second Reading of Bills

Electoral Boundaries Commission

Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 39) (continued)

Hon. M. de

Jong

Committee of the Whole House

First Nations Education Act (Bill 46)

S. Fraser

Hon. S. Bond

Report and Third Reading of Bills

First Nations Education Act (Bill 46)

Committee of the Whole House

Maa-nulth First Nations Final Agreement

Act (Bill 45)

(continued)

G. Gentner

Hon. M. de

Jong

H. Lali

D. MacKay

S. Fraser

[ Page 9549 ]

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 2007

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. Coell: Today in the members' gallery I would like

to acknowledge some special visitors from the Republic of Serbia. Please join me

in welcoming the hon. Milica Cubrilo, Minister for Diaspora. She is accompanied

by Dragana Petrovic, her chief of cabinet; and Peter Vladikovic, the honorary

consul of Serbia in Vancouver.

The minister is in British Columbia to attend the Serbian FilmFest

taking place in Vancouver this week, as well as travelling across Canada and

meeting with members of legislatures here and across the country. We hope that

her stay in British Columbia is good and that she enjoys our beautiful province.

We would, hopefully, have the House please make her welcome.

Hon. C. Richmond: We had a marvellous event out behind the

Legislature today, where we unveiled a van for the wheelchair athletes of the

province. Some of them are joining us in the House today. I'm also pleased to

say that the Minister for ActNow and I had the pleasure of enjoying a wheelchair

rugby game with them and nearly got whiplash for it.

[1335]

I would like to introduce Richard Peter. He's a member of the

national wheelchair basketball team. He's a two-time Paralympic gold medallist

and a two-time world champion.

Garett Hickling is a member of the provincial and national

wheelchair rugby team. Kathy Newman is the executive director of the B.C.

Wheelchair Sports Association. Lia Threlfall is a board member of B.C.

Wheelchair Sports Association.

These people are in the House with us today, and I would also like

to welcome two guests watching the proceedings via TV in a private room in the

Legislature: Teri Thorson, one of our Paralympic athletes who represented us

well in Athens, as well as Carrie Linegar, the managing director of the B.C.

Wheelchair Basketball Society. Please make them all welcome.

D. Chudnovsky: Mr. Speaker, you'll be well aware, from

other introductions that I've made in this House, that there are two outstanding

secondary schools in the constituency of Vancouver-Kensington. We have students

from one of them here today. I'd like to ask colleagues to welcome the teacher,

Ms. Langton, and the students from John Oliver Secondary School.

J. Yap: It's my pleasure to introduce to the House two good

friends and constituents who are visiting Victoria for a little family visit and

a visit to the capital city. John and Angela Taggart, longtime residents of

Richmond, in my constituency of Richmond-Steveston, are longtime community

activists and volunteers. Would the House please make them feel most welcome.

Hon. G. Hogg: Most of us know that true heroes are not

found in the sports arenas, the boardrooms or even the legislatures across this

land.

Hon. K. Krueger: Say it's not so.

Hon. G. Hogg: I think it's so.

Rather, they're often found doing some of the challenging,

sometimes tedious, often repetitive tasks all over this province and

particularly in this building.

One such hero has worked in this building since 1993, and her last

day will be December 24. Her great-grandfather, as her biography states, was a

freeborn black of a black mother. He and his wife came to Victoria from San

Francisco on July 1, 1858, in response to Sir James Douglas's call for

colonists. They were among the very first black families to come to British

Columbia. And his great-granddaughter also makes the world's very best rum

balls.

Please join me in extending our gratitude and our best wishes in

her retirement to Marcia Bestwick.

D. Routley: I want to ask the House to help me welcome

guests who didn't quite make it here today. The Royal Navy veterans society of

my riding were planning to visit the House today but, because of the impending

bad weather, decided it was best not to come.

I want to welcome them to come again and celebrate their great

achievements, great contributions, and I thank them, because my mother-in-law

enjoyed their grand ball very much and the parlour games and all that. They're

fantastic people. Please help me thank them.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) MABEL JEAN RAWLINS-BRANNAN

C. James: Today I rise to acknowledge the work of an

individual who has contributed incredibly to the Greater Victoria community.

Mabel Jean Rawlins-Brannan, after 14 years, is leaving her position as executive

director of the Community Social Planning Council of Greater Victoria.

Mabel Jean has dedicated the past four decades to work in the

not-for-profit sector, both locally and internationally, but it's through her

work at Community Council that I and many in my community know her best.

I had the privilege of sitting on the Community Social Planning

Council when Mabel Jean joined the organization. It was a time of challenge for

the council as it explored its changing role in our community. Mabel Jean

brought her extraordinary skills not only to the council but, in fact, to the

Greater Victoria community.

[ Page 9550 ]

She created opportunities for people to come together and learn from each

other as they built a strong community.

[1340]

Her vision and leadership brought together diverse interest groups

and sectors to address social issues in B.C.'s capital region such as poverty,

the health of the downtown, food security, housing affordability and, most

recently, the comprehensive quality-of-life challenge. Mabel Jean built links

and brought her passion and respect for communities. For that, our communities

are better places for all.

Please help me thank Mabel Jean and wish her well as she moves

into this next phase of her life.

EMPLOYMENT OF DISABLED PERSONS

D. Hayer: Next Monday we celebrate International Day of

Disabled Persons. This year's theme is "Decent work for persons with

disabilities." Yet throughout the world, very few persons with disabilities are

gainfully employed. This government is changing that in British Columbia.

We have the 10 by 10 Challenge, in which communities across the

province have been challenged to increase employment of people with disabilities

by 10 percent by 2010. So far, 46 communities, including Surrey, are actively

participating.

There are currently 300,000 working-age people with disabilities

in British Columbia, many of whom want to work. They have the motivation,

dedication and ability to be a valuable member of our workforce. Some 34,000

have college diplomas, 30,000 have trade certificates and 28,000 have university

degrees.

To assist these residents, our government annually invests $20

million in the revamped employment program for persons with disabilities that is

available to all British Columbians with a disability. There is $2 million in

Legacies Now and to help communities make public spaces more accessible.

In September $580,000 was invested and distributed to the city of

Surrey and 29 other communities across B.C. Plus, there is a $1.14 million

accessible tourism initiative to assist in making our province the most

disabled-friendly destination in the world.

Every member of this House should take a moment on December 3 to

reflect on the role of people with disabilities and the contribution they can

make to our workforce and our society if given the opportunity that is provided

to every other person. Every member of this House should encourage all

organizations and businesses within their constituencies and communities to hire

more people with disabilities.

ELECTIONS IN UKRAINE

M. Farnworth: Earlier this year I had the opportunity to be

an election observer with the OSCE for the elections in Ukraine. It was a

fascinating experience to be from a country where many people take democracy for

granted, to be in an emerging democracy to see how they do things. That's what I

want to briefly tell the House today.

I was sent to a community called Sumy, which has another name now

here in this province. But unlike the Vancouver Sun …. I can assure the

Vancouver Sun that Sumy is not a little town. It is a community of some

300,000 people. The area surrounding it is agricultural, with lots of small

villages.

The thing that struck me was the enthusiasm with which people

participated in the electoral process. Turnouts of 80 to 85 percent were not

uncommon. I want to mention a couple of places in particular — small villages,

quite isolated and quite poor in terms of what we know, what we would expect,

but very rich in community spirit, very rich in the agricultural products which

they produce and which Ukraine is so famous for.

Anyway, the two communities are Golovawivka, which was a

community of about 700 people, and a small place called Novi Virki. I'm

mentioning them because when I was in Ukraine, I said I would raise them in this

House. If you do a Google search on both these places, you won't find anything,

so this will put them on the map.

In particular, I want to say a special thank-you to the people

from Golovawivka because at the end of the count, this small community brought

forward roasted chickens; hams; pickles; vegetables; perogies, or varenyky, as

they call them; homemade vodka — everything produced in that village by those

people.

[1345]

They fed us foreigners — strangers who didn't speak the same

language — and they showed tremendous hospitality. It was really heartwarming

that even though we couldn't speak the same language, we all understood the same

thing. We were all there to celebrate democracy.

WHITE RIBBON CAMPAIGN

J. Yap: Mr. Speaker, I stand here today with a white ribbon

on my lapel to bring attention to an extremely important campaign. The white

ribbon campaign is a worldwide initiative, driven by men, to put an end to the

verbal, emotional and physical abuse against women.

It started in 1991 in reaction to the December 6 massacre of 14

women at École Polytechnique in Montreal. The white ribbon campaign has grown

from a Canadian grassroots effort of visionary men to a worldwide endeavour to

raise awareness and end all violence against women.

The campaign now runs in over 50 countries and is observed in

Canada from November 25, the international day for the eradication of violence

against women, to December 6, Canada's National Day of Remembrance and Action on

Violence Against Women. Wearing a white ribbon during these weeks is a man's

pledge to never commit, condone or remain silent about violence against women

and girls.

[ Page 9551 ]

The campaign aims to challenge everyone to speak out against

violence, to educate men and boys as well as women on how to stop violence, and

to raise public awareness. The white ribbon campaign works closely with women's

organizations to help, aid and improve the situation of all women and girls.

For the first time in my community of Richmond, the Richmond RCMP

and Chimo Crisis Services, a Richmond-based non-profit organization, have come

together to launch the inaugural white ribbon campaign in our city. By opting to

bring the white ribbon campaign to Richmond, Chimo has demonstrated a continued

dedication to end all violence against women.

Please join me in thanking all organizations who have supported

the white ribbon campaign in an effort to make the world a safer place for

ourselves, our mothers, our wives, our sisters, our daughters and all members of

the community.

BARBARA KOHNE

J. Horgan: We all have land use or development issues in

our constituencies that pit neighbours against each other. No better historic

example exists in my riding than the proposed Silver Spray development in East

Sooke.

The proposal came forward in the last decade, but the legal

fallout from allegations of defamation have only recently concluded, and the

results of the action are still being felt today. No more so than for Barbara

Kohne and her husband Horst.

Barbara is a mother of three who, before her retirement in 1991,

worked hard, paid taxes and saved to put her children through university. She

volunteered in the community. She tried to be active in a positive way for the

betterment of East Sooke and the entire region. In fact, she served all British

Columbians on the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform.

All of us in this chamber have people like Barbara in our

constituencies, who give back to the community — people who put their own

interests to one side to help their neighbours and those they know and those

they do not.

We all assume that we have freedom to express our views, to

associate with others and to speak out on issues of public concern in our

community. Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, or SLAPP suits, are

one way for developers and others with legal teams and deep pockets to attempt

to obtain silence in a community.

In the Silver Spray case, the courts found in favour of the

plaintiff. The facts are the facts. However, after eight years, 22 costly court

appearances and a 52-day trial, the punitive consequences have had a heavy toll

on Barbara.

For a quiet pensioner who worked hard all her life to do the right

thing for her family and her community, the judgment seems harsh and beyond

reasonable. The penalty she has had to pay after associating with neighbours and

doing what she thought was right, in my opinion, is completely disproportionate

to the action she took.

WHISTLER ARTS COUNCIL

J. McIntyre: I rise to pay tribute to the Whistler Arts

Council in honour of their 25th anniversary. Whistler Arts Council was

established in 1982 with a mandate to build and integrate the arts into the

fabric of Whistler. Over the years, they've made a major contribution to

Whistler's attraction.

Some of you may have attended some of these terrific annual

events, and if not, I encourage you to. There's ArtWalk; Whistler Children's Art

Festival; the summer workshops on the lake; ARTrageous; Bizarre Bazaar, which

just happened for the 19th year last weekend; Celebration 2010; and of course

the Whistler Film Festival that's coming up this week, which is culminating in

an awards breakfast on Sunday, December 2 where I will be bringing greetings

from the province.

[1350]

I had the honour of attending an event a few weeks ago in honour

of the 25th anniversary that was billed as a storytelling event. It was

entertaining to hear from a variety of some of the founding families and to hear

the stories from Whistler's early days.

We were regaled with tales from such prominent Whistlerites as

Isabelle and Don MacLauren, Peter Alder, Hugh Smythe, Florence Petersen and

artist Vincent Massey, who all gave us a glimpse of what life was like in this

mountain town before the highway was ever paved.

One of the Whistler Arts Council's recent achievements that's near

and dear to me is obtaining the funding for a regional economic impact study of

arts, culture and heritage in the Sea to Sky corridor from Arts Now, from the

Squamish-Lillooet regional district and from the resort municipality of

Whistler.

This study will gather some baseline data on the scope and

economic benefits of the existing cultural activities, as well as develop

strategies for future growth. It will enhance partnerships between the regional

arts, culture and heritage organizations, and build bridges between the cultural

sector, the business community and local government.

It will also help support the development of a Sea to Sky cultural

alliance, a concept which received support from well over a hundred cultural and

community leaders, including their local MLA, at a formative meeting in Squamish

in November '06.

Oral Questions

UTILIZATION OF MRI MACHINE

AT ST. PAUL'S HOSPITAL

C. James: On May 11, 2005, St. Paul's Hospital announced

the purchase of a new MRI machine. Using money donated from community groups and

local businesses, the specialized machinery was to be used for non-emergency

MRIs on limbs.

It was designed to be a cheaper and more effective way to reduce

St. Paul's long wait-list for MRIs. The new MRI was the first of its kind in

B.C. At the time,

[ Page 9552 ]

the leader of the radiology clinical services said: "This new equipment

allows us to do more scans for less money."

But now that MRI is sitting idle because the government refuses to

fund it. So my question is to the Minister of Health. Can he explain why a MRI

machine bought two years ago is sitting idle while patients suffer in pain?

Hon. G. Abbott: The short answer to the question is:

because a superior machine has come on line, which is being used for that

purpose now.

I am glad to advise the member, as well, that we've got great news

here. Since we took office, we have now added ten MRI machines. When we took

office, there were nine MRIs across the province. Today there are 19 MRIs across

the province.

When we took office, there were just over 40,000 MRI scans done

annually in British Columbia. That number is double today — to over 80,000 MRI

scans.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

C. James: The minister forgets one thing. There's an MRI

machine sitting at St. Paul's, bought in 2005, that could be used right now to

deal with the wait-lists. There are patients right now who are sitting on

wait-lists, not able to get an MRI, and a machine that was bought in 2005 that's

not being used.

Every year hospitals get a budget for MRI scans. And if they go

over budget — tough luck — patients don't get their scans. It's a manufactured

crisis by this government, one that is making patients wait months and months.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. James: Mr. Speaker, those who can't afford to wait end

up having to pay out of pocket for medically necessary care.

If the minister really cares about services, if he really wants to

deal with wait-lists and patients who are struggling and waiting, he could

actually stand up right now, put an end to that wait-list and give the money to

St. Paul's to get that MRI working.

[1355]

Hon. G. Abbott: More evidence of the awesome research

machine, obviously, over on the NDP side.

Interjections.

Hon. G. Abbott: Yeah, you should clap. You should clap for

sure.

The machine to which the member refers is an extremity machine

which looks at broken joints, that sort of thing. As I advised the member in my

previous answer, it has been replaced by a better piece of technology.

MRI scans at St. Paul's Hospital are way up. We have increased by

41 percent the number of MRI scans, just over the last four years alone.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

C. James: I'd like the Minister of Health to take a minute,

then, and phone Jane Griffiths from the Sunshine Coast, who after months and

months and months of knee pain was told she'd have to wait a year to be able to

get an MRI scan. One year — when a machine that is still usable isn't being used

because this government refuses to fund it.

She was told there was another option, though. She was told that

she could go to a private clinic and that she could pay out of pocket. Because

she was struggling and suffering, she paid the $475 to a private operator and

was told that she actually needed surgery.

This minister's refusal to fund that MRI machine sitting idle at

St. Paul's means that people like Jane Griffiths are forced into the private

system. It's a crisis that's created by this government with their policy that

actually caps funding for MRIs, a crisis for this government which is quite

willing to take $400 million on a cost overrun on the convention centre and put

it to that but refuses to help patients who are waiting in pain.

My question is to the Minister of Health. How many people like

Jane Griffiths could he actually help with the $400 million that he threw at the

convention centre and won't give to patients in British Columbia?

Hon. G. Abbott: Sometimes it seems like such a long wait

until one gets an opportunity to answer. I am pleased to advise that the….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm pleased to advise that the extremities

scanner, which has been referenced in the previous two questions, is not sitting

idle. It is being used less because there is a superior machine now, which is

doing the same job much more effectively.

I'm also delighted to tell the member that when we had the former

NDP government in office — and this is just an example — on Vancouver Island

people were waiting up to eleven months for an MRI. Today that wait is 12.4

weeks. We have made tremendous progress with respect to MRI scans. We are

investing over 50 percent more in health care than was the case when we took

office in the province of British Columbia.

A. Dix: Charitable donations were sought and made to pay

for this MRI, and it's been left to sit idle. People are waiting for MRIs.

[ Page 9553 ]

You know, the Minister of Health may not care about the people who

are waiting on long wait-lists for MRIs…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

A. Dix: …in British Columbia, but we care about it. It's

medically necessary care. The "minister of extra billing" may not care about it,

but we care about it.

Those people who are waiting on those wait-lists don't care about

the minister's partisan bluster. They want access to an MRI machine. There's one

sitting idle. There are ones that are being rationed at Lions Gate, at

University Hospital, at Vancouver General Hospital. That's the policy of the

minister. It's not for any other reason. It's because he's rationing care.

[1400]

What does he have to say to those people waiting right now — on

wait times for MRIs? The Minister of Health, when he has to wait ten seconds for

a question, is angry. They have to wait month after month after month because

he's letting them down in the public health care system.

Hon. G. Abbott: Here's what I have to say to those people.

That is: thank God that crew was thrown out of office in 2001. Since 2001 the

population of British Columbia has grown by perhaps 5 or 6 percent. The number

of MRI scans that we are doing in this province has doubled since 2001.

According to this member, apparently the NDP back in the day had

absolutely no budget constraints. Yet for some reason which escapes me, they

were only able to do about 40,000 MRI scans back in 2001. Today, Mr. Speaker,

80,000 MRIs, twice as many machines, shorter wait times and expedited access to

surgeries — a great improvement over the record of that dismal government in

that dismal decade of the 1990s.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Take your seat.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Listen to the question, and listen to

the answer.

Member has a supplemental.

A. Dix: The minister makes the decision. People are on

wait-lists for MRIs. He doesn't know how many because he doesn't keep those

statistics. People are on wait-lists for MRIs. They're suffering, in pain. I'm

sure they're fascinated by the laughter and the bluster from the Minister of

Health.

Hon. Speaker, in Victoria in September they cut the hours used by

the public MRI machines. We have the machines; we have the staff. This minister

was responsible for cutting the hours. There are people waiting in pain for

those MRIs.

In Kelowna, Jared Tarswell — you could talk to him. He would have

had a six-month wait for an MRI. He went across the street and had to pay. He's

a student at UBC Kelowna. He had to do it because the minister won't fund MRIs.

We have this charade….

Interjection.

A. Dix: Well, the minister says….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, listen to the question, please.

Continue, Member.

A. Dix: The Minister of Health apparently simply doesn't

care about those people who are waiting on that wait-list for MRIs. He could

solve that problem today. He could put those MRI machines in operation today. He

could run them and get rid of that wait-list today. He refuses to do it. Why

not?

Hon. G. Abbott: I know that this member and this former

government like to live in a fantasy world of their own concoction — a kind of

Alice-in-Wonderland world that they concoct around themselves where there's

absolutely no limit on resources, where they can do whatever they want. But it's

sadly at odds to their record when they were in government — only 40,000 MRI

scans in the last year of their government.

We've doubled that. That's action over rhetoric. We hear every day

a whole lot of empty rhetoric from that member, that opposition leader, that

former government.

More MRI scans, more MRI machines, shorter wait times, greater

access to surgeries — it's a far better health care system than we ever had in

the 1990s.

[1405]

RESOURCES FOR

FIRST NATIONS CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

N. Simons: For three years the first nations in the

Hazelton area have been pleading for resources to address the tragedy of suicide

in their communities. But instead of spending money on front-line services as

Hughes said they should do, the Minister of Children and Families' priorities

have been focused on fancy renovations, reorganization and spin.

When will the minister provide first nations with the resources

they need so that more aboriginal families in the north don't have to experience

the tragic loss of a family member?

[ Page 9554 ]

Hon. T. Christensen: The member raises a very serious issue

for all of us. Certainly, my thoughts and my prayers go out, as I'm sure do all

members', to those who have lost a loved one to the tragedy of suicide.

The fact is that we are working with aboriginal communities in the

north. We've been working with community leaders in response to recent events in

Hazelton, but we have also been making other efforts within the context of the

child and youth mental health plan over the last couple of years.

The child and youth mental health team in Hazelton has increased

from one and a half people to three people in the last two years as part of the

overall child and youth mental health plan. A fourth person is being added.

We have convened in this last year a meeting of first nations

chiefs and other aboriginal stakeholders from across the province specifically

to discuss the tragedy and the challenges of aboriginal youth suicide. We are

certainly committed to working with aboriginal communities, with service

providers and with all British Columbians so that we can reverse what is a

tragic trend that all of us must work sincerely to try and address.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Simons: Mr. Speaker, it's those very first nations

agencies that are saying that the problem is not being addressed by this

minister.

At least 59 people have attempted suicide in the Hazeltons since

June 1, and 70 percent of those were women under the age of 21.

Ted Hughes said that regionalization had to be done right, but the

right people, the first-nations-delegated agencies, have yet to be included.

This is directly related to the failure of this government to implement the

Hughes recommendations. This minister has the wrong priorities, and his

regionalization strategy has been an abject failure. He is responsible for not

implementing some of the most important recommendations of the Hughes report.

I'll ask my question again. Will the minister stop running from

the facts and provide first nations communities, on an urgent basis, with the

resources they need to deal with this ongoing tragedy of despair and suicide?

Hon. T. Christensen: This government has doubled the

resources to child and youth mental health in this province over the course of

the last five years. Part of that is a $10 million aboriginal child and youth

mental health plan that is currently being implemented. There is a request for

proposals in the north, specific to that aboriginal child and youth mental

health plan so that we can make the necessary progress in addressing instances

of aboriginal suicide and attempted suicide among youth.

We are working closely with the community in Hazelton. Additional

resources have been put in place to help with assessing adolescents that may be

at risk of suicide and providing additional support to the community with the

staff that have been adjusted and moved from other resources across the north.

We are committed to working with communities in the north and

communities across the province to address these challenges. Certainly, if the

member has suggestions that he would like to relate to me, I'm happy to take

those, because my interest is ensuring that we are working with people so that

we can reverse what has unfortunately been a long-term and tragic trend with

respect to aboriginal youth suicide.

IMPLEMENTATION OF

HUGHES REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

ON CHILD PROTECTION

M. Karagianis: Not only is the minister not implementing

all of the Hughes recommendations, he has the wrong priorities. Instead of

delivering resources to front-line services, as the previous member has outlined

and as Hughes recommended, this government is squandering resources on fancy

boardroom renovations.

[1410]

The leadership in this ministry is in question, hon. Speaker. So I

would ask directly through to the minister: when will the minister get his

priorities straight and promise to implement all of the Hughes recommendations —

all 62?

Hon. T. Christensen: As I indicated yesterday, this

government is committed to implementing each and every one of Mr. Hughes's

recommendations. We are moving forward with the implementation of those

recommendations within the context of improving front-line services to children

and families across the province.

The member suggests that the priorities are wrong. Well, let's

look at the increases in resources: $73.2 million over this current three-year

cycle for children at risk; increasing supports to families, supports to

caregivers, supports to children in care; $69 million over three years to expand

regional child welfare and family support services; more than $85 million for

child and youth mental health services, which are part of the child and youth

mental health plan.

We've increased the number of children that are being served, to

assist them with their mental health issues, by 9,000. That's almost double in

the last five years as part of that plan. We've added $31 million over three

years to raise monthly payments and other supports for foster parents — again,

something that was specifically identified by Mr. Hughes.

We are focusing our efforts on adding those front-line resources

at the same time that we are focusing our efforts on ensuring that all of Mr.

Hughes's recommendations will be implemented.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: The question is very simple. If you are

going to implement all of these recommendations, when? What is the time line for

implementing all 62 of these recommendations? Give us the time line.

Hon. T. Christensen: Mr. Hughes made his recommendations 18

months ago. In 18 months, 60 percent of those

[ Page 9555 ]

recommendations are either complete or well in progress. The remainder of

those recommendations — work is underway.

Mr. Hughes himself recognized that in some cases, there are

recommendations that will take a number of years to fully implement. It will be

a number of years before we have a fully implemented alternative governance

system in terms of services to aboriginal people.

We are going to work diligently. We are going to work closely with

the Representative for Children and Youth to ensure that she has a full

appreciation of the work that is underway, and we are going to ensure that we

are on a positive path of improving services to children and youth right across

the province.

L. Krog: The minister invokes the name of Ted Hughes in

this House, and I'm glad he did, because everyone who has been elected to this

assembly in the last 20 years and everyone who has worked in the public service

for the last 20 years respects Ted Hughes. Every member of this assembly not

only endorsed but completely endorsed the recommendations of Mr. Hughes.

Recommendations, however, without implementation do nothing for

vulnerable children today. This government has had a year and a half to

implement those recommendations. It's very simple. What is the actual time line

that this minister can tell this House today, which is actually going to deal

with Mr. Hughes's recommendations?

Hon. T. Christensen: We are moving forward with each and

every one of Mr. Hughes's recommendations. I certainly expect that over the

course of the next year, the vast majority will be implemented or certainly very

well underway.

I look forward to working with the Representative for Children and

Youth. The ministry looks forward to having an opportunity to work with the

Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth to ensure that we are fulfilling

the promise provided by Mr. Hughes's recommendations.

This is the government that retained Mr. Hughes, that provided him

a mandate, that appreciated the work he did and that indicated, upon receiving

his recommendations, that we were committed to implementing them. We are going

to implement the recommendations.

[1415]

GOVERNMENT CHILD CARE BOOKLET

C. Trevena: My question is for the Minister of State for

Childcare. Her ministry has distributed a shiny booklet for those interested in

starting a child care centre, and there are a number of recommended links in it.

I'd like to ask whether the minister could tell the House why one of those links

is to a private company that runs prison systems in the United States.

Hon. L. Reid: I am certainly delighted to talk about child

care in British Columbia and to talk about the dollars that are available to

build child care.

The member opposite may be aware that there is currently a capital

round underway for $12.5 million. We trust that that dollar value will bring to

this province the additional seats that the member continues to ask for.

It has been fascinating to me, though…. On November 19, when the

critic talked about spaces, her actual words were: "Instead of cutting space…."

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. L. Reid: I'm happy to repeat it, because it's

fascinating. The critic, on November 19: "Instead of cutting space, instead of

bricks and mortar…." So what do we have here? We have build or don't build.

Perhaps build. Which is it, Member?

This is a province that's interested in creating child care space

in British Columbia, and we indeed believe that individuals can bring some

expertise to the field.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. Trevena: I did ask the Minister of State for Childcare

why, in a booklet put out by her ministry which is paid for by taxpayers'

dollars, there is a link to a U.S. company that runs prison systems running

corporate child care in Richmond.

I wondered if the minister could explain why that link is there

and tell the House whether it has any significance that the company has given

large donations to the B.C. Liberals and is headed by a former head of the B.C.

Liberals.

Hon. L. Reid: Again, a quote from the critic opposite: "A

vision for child care…."

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. L. Reid: "A vision for child care must include parents

and all children and should include a diversity of provider." What we have

before us today is an employer in the province who, frankly, values his

employees to the extent….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat for a second.

Minister, continue.

Hon. L. Reid: Again, I'm happy to put on the record the

quote, on behalf of the critic: "A vision of child care must include parents and

children and should include a diversity of provider."

Frankly, we have many employers in British Columbia today who have

stepped up to the plate because they understand that when an economy is growing

to the

[ Page 9556 ]

extent this economy is, they indeed could provide child care to their

employees. That, in fact, is the recruitment and retention strategy in British

Columbia.

We have individuals who today are providing child care for their

employees and need to be celebrated for that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, do we want to continue?

M. Farnworth: The question is really clear. Can she tell

why the only link on a taxpayer-funded document is to a U.S. site, a prison

site, that builds prisons and has donated more than $15,000 to the B.C. Liberal

Party? Can she tell us the answer to that? Or is this an example of her new

approach to child care, which is: "Are there no prisons? Are there no

workhouses?"

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. L. Reid: I believe there are many links on that

document. Many are within the Ministry of Children and Family Development, and

many will continue to offer to those who would participate with the province in

building child care very useful information.

[1420]

I believe I've answered the question. It is indeed employer-based

child care. We have many responsible employers in British Columbia who continue

to offer child care for their employees, because they do believe that it's

important to recruit and retain staff. Offering child care is one of the ways in

which they do that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: The question is really quite simple. Why is

the only link to a child care provider on a publicly paid-for booklet a donor

who contributed $15,000 to the B.C. Liberal Party? Why is that the only link for

a child care provider — and is a U.S. private prison provider?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. L. Reid: I'm happy to repeat the answer to the

question. The individual….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. L. Reid: We have employers in British Columbia who

have taken the unique step of being responsible for the child care needs of

their employees. That is an important contribution to child care in the province

of British Columbia.

In fact, there is investment in the province of British Columbia

that relates to child care. In 2001 the child care budget in this province was

$212 million.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. L. Reid: This year it will exceed $287 million worth

of spending. That is an enormous contribution. It's important that we continue

to build child care space in the province of British Columbia, and we as a

government are doing exactly that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

D. MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition here from

concerned citizens throughout the lower mainland asking the province to

reactivate the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, in light of the

key issues arising out of the Tsawwassen and the Maa-nulth treaties.

Hon. C. Richmond: I have a petition from the Royal Canadian

Legion, branch 52 in Kamloops, regarding their authorized designated smoking

area.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call continued second reading debate on

Bill 39, Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act.

Second Reading of Bills

ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES COMMISSION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

(continued)

Hon. M. de Jong: With respect to the debate on Bill 39, I

must say to the House that I have listened to the debate with interest. I have

heard all manner of accusations and theories from the opposition benches. I'll

come to that in a moment, although I won't spend a huge amount of time on trying

to discern the basis for those accusations.

What does seem clear is that the opposition, based on everything

I've heard in the course of the debate, is intent on preventing a vote from

occurring on Bill 39 in the ordinary course of business.

[1425]

Now, I should say this. Oppositions, in fulfilling their duties

and their obligations, are certainly entitled

[ Page 9557 ]

to use the procedural rules of the House as a means of achieving a particular

objective. To a certain extent, I think that is a legitimate means by which the

opposition fulfils its duties in this chamber.

Those tactics usually mean that the opposition is opposed to a

particular initiative of the government. I say "usually" because I don't

actually automatically make the assumption that because the opposition has

spoken in the way it has on the bill…. I don't automatically come to the

conclusion that, were a vote to occur, the opposition would be opposed.

The opposition has spoken in many cases very critically on the ten

bills that have come before the House in this sitting and so far — with, I

believe, one or two bills remaining — have in fact voted in favour of every one

of those bills. So it doesn't automatically follow in my mind that the vote will

match the commentary.

What does seem clear is that if there is to be a vote in the

present circumstances on Bill 39, the opposition seems intent on forcing the

government to impose some form of closure pursuant to the standing orders.

I want to say this clearly for all members. The government will

not impose closure on this bill.

Bill 39, to my mind, is a unique kind of bill. I thought,

actually, with the limited time available in this sitting, the members might

have some interest….

Interjections.

Hon. M. de Jong: It is unique, I believe, because it is a

bill that provides — or purports to provide — authority to an independent

commission to assist with the task of reconfiguring the electoral map. It goes

to the heart of the electoral process in British Columbia.

I believe, and the government believes, that the commission we ask

to do that work deserves to know that the will of parliament has been freely

expressed. It would be improper to impose closure knowing that the mandate that

derives out of that is one that the commission would be moving forward with in

pursuit of the fulfilment of its duties.

I actually do draw a distinction between that type of bill, which

goes to the heart of our electoral process, and a bill that has been on the

order paper for seven months and that other considerations seem to be at play. I

do make that distinction.

I will just take a moment to remind the House, if I can, about

what the original intention was here. We passed in this House an original bill

that gave rise…. And there was a statutory obligation to do that.

The original intention was to try and strike a balance, to give to

the commission the tools necessary to, on the one hand, ensure that there would

be sufficient protection for rural representation — I see members sitting in

this chamber for whom I know that is important not just conceptually but

individually in terms of the communities they represent — and on the other hand,

ensure that the tools were there to provide for equitable representation in

areas of the province that are growing very quickly. That was the balance we

tried to strike.

[1430]

Unless I'm mistaken, we did that with near, if not unanimous,

support. The tools we gave to the commission included a provision whereby they

could increase the number of MLAs who sit in this chamber by up to six. That's

what we did. We voted — I think, very nearly all of us in this chamber — in

favour of that.

The commission took that mandate — where we emphasized, in the

debate, the importance that we attached to protecting rural representation — and

began their work. And it's tough work. They travelled to many communities, they

heard submissions, and they came up with a report.

In the best way they could, they said: "Here is the result of our

work. Here's how we think we can achieve that balance, but we are constrained by

the tools you have given us. We are constrained by the mandate. We are

constrained by the common law not just in this province but in this country."

In their report they said — and this is the quote:

"Our

interpretation of our mandate leads us to conclude

that no region of the province has an automatic entitlement to 'very special

circumstances' status for some or all of its electoral districts. Neither do we

believe that it would be appropriate for us to begin with a presumption that

each region of the province should be guaranteed its current level of

representation.

"The Legislative Assembly could have made that our

mandate, but it did not. Rather, we are governed by the overriding

constitutional and legal requirement to strive for relative parity of voting

power among electoral districts and to deviate from parity only to the extent

necessary to ensure effective representation."

They applied the law as they saw fit. They commented on

what they saw as — these are my words, not theirs — limitations in the mandate.

If we made a mistake, that is where we made the mistake. We apparently did not

provide them with the mandate that they have since told us they required to

achieve the objective we set for them. The commission said that six new seats

were not enough to address that. We all voted for six new seats.

Interjections.

Hon. M. de Jong: The member says that we all voted for "up

to." The members are correct. The members are absolutely correct. We said "up

to" six new seats. The commission, in applying the mandate we gave them, in

having due consideration for the legal constraints by which they are bound,

couldn't get there — couldn't get to where they thought they needed to go. That

is reflected in the report.

When the report was tabled, I think it's fair to say that members

on both sides of the House expressed their disappointment and said: "This

doesn't cut it, especially in terms of rural representation."

So the government, on the basis of what the commission said, had a

decision to make about whether or not to attempt to alter the mandate that we as

an assembly gave them. We said, amongst other things, that representation in

three regions — regions defined by the commission,

[ Page 9558 ]

not by the government…. Representation in those three regions could not be

reduced.

On the basis of the advice we had received, we said: "We

understand that the commission believes it needs additional room and flexibility

to do that." We said, "You have two additional seats" — and, yes, made it

mandatory in the legislation on the basis that, as our understanding of the

report, the commission couldn't accomplish its objective with six.

I suppose you could go to seven, but that would have meant an even

number of seats in the House, so the next number is eight. That's what the bill

does.

[1435]

I have heard all of the assertions about attempts to manipulate

and gerrymander. I'm sure that when they leave this place, unless some means is

found to address this, I will continue to hear that. That was not the intention.

That is not the intention.

It is to try and work within the bounds of the law and the

constitution of the country and to provide a commission that we create in this

chamber to find that appropriate balance.

In a moment I'm going to move adjournment of this debate, and

we'll move on to some other business. If I hear from the opposition — if I hear

from the opposition leader, which would be the general course of events — that

they are prepared to move to a vote on this matter, then we'll recall it.

But the clock is ticking. Under the rules of this House, second

reading debate must be concluded by today. We would then have a very short

period of time tomorrow to deal with legislation in committee. So I make that

offer during the course of this debate.

If we don't do that, we should all be aware of the consequences.

Unless the bill is recalled later today and a vote takes place on second reading

— and again I emphasize, a vote that will not be imposed by government…. It will

happen because the members on both sides of the House decide there should be a

vote.

If that does not happen, the bill will die. If the bill dies,

members from this House — and I do say with a bias, particularly members of the

opposition — will have to explain why rural communities in British Columbia have

been put at risk in terms of the representation. If one thinks about how this

will probably ultimately play out….

I will say this. The government has made clear that it will not

support a proposal that would see a reduction in rural representation.

The more likely result, although I don't want to anticipate how

the commission will ultimately complete its work, although I am guided by what

the commission has said in their interim report…. I think it is fair to be

guided by what they have said.

Then I suppose members of the opposition can explain to

fast-growing communities — regions of the province like Surrey, like the

Okanagan — why those areas of the province don't have the representation to

which they are entitled by virtue of their growth.

As the clock winds down on this session, that is the challenge

before us. As I say, if I am alerted by the opposition of a genuine desire to

move to a vote, then we will do so.

With that, I do move adjournment of the debate on this bill.

Hon. M. de Jong moved adjournment of debate.

[1440]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 39

Falcon

Reid

Coell

Ilich

Chong

Christensen

Les

Richmond

Bell

Krueger

Roddick

Hayer

Jarvis

Whittred

Cantelon

Thorpe

Hagen

Oppal

de Jong

Taylor

Bond

Hansen

Abbott

Penner

Neufeld

Coleman

Hogg

Sultan

Bennett

Lekstrom

Mayencourt

Polak

Hawes

Yap

Bloy

MacKay

Black

McIntyre

Rustad

NAYS — 28

S. Simpson

Fleming

Farnworth

James

Kwan

Ralston

B. Simpson

Cubberley

Hammell

Coons

Thorne

Simons

Gentner

Routley

Fraser

Horgan

Lali

Dix

Trevena

Karagianis

Evans

Krog

Chudnovsky

Chouhan

Wyse

Sather

Macdonald

Conroy

Hon. M. de Jong: I call committee stage debate on Bill 46,

First Nations Education Act.

[1445]

Committee of the Whole House

FIRST NATIONS EDUCATION ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 46; S.

Hammell in the chair.

The committee met at 2:48 p.m.

section 1.

S. Fraser: I do not plan on taking very long with this. As

the opposition has indicated, we will be supporting

[ Page 9559 ]

this bill, and we are happy with the details of this. In the interests of

expedience, we plan on being fairly quick on this.

I guess I need a little bit of assistance here. I have some fairly

high-level questions about implementation of the bill. I guess I look for your

guidance, the guidance of the minister here, as to how best to proceed. It's not

really by section. If you could help me here, I will try to be as effective as

possible in as short a time as possible.

The Chair: Member, questions of a general nature can be

asked on

section 1.

S. Fraser: With Bill 46, this is a bill that will be

melding with the federal Bill C-34. I'm just not sure how that happens. Can the

minister just explain to me what mechanisms are in place to bring the federal

and provincial legislation together?

[1450]

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, I want to take this opportunity

to introduce to the House the staff that I have with me today. They have done a

tremendous job in working through this issue, as has the entire team that has

brought the First Nations Education Act to the Legislature.

I'm delighted to have with me Peter Owen, who is the assistant

deputy minister of governance and accountability; Dave Duerksen, the director of

governance and legislation; and Trish Rosborough, the director of aboriginal

education. I can assure the members they work very hard every day to make sure

that work like this is successful, and they've done a tremendous job. I

appreciate them being here.

In terms of the question of the member opposite about how Bill

C-34 and this piece of legislation mesh. In fact, in order to give jurisdiction

to first nations on first nations land, that is a requirement of the federal

government. They actually have to bring that power into existence. Bill C-34,

which was passed in the federal House, actually gives jurisdiction to first

nations on first nations land in terms of education.

This piece of legislation recognizes that jurisdiction. So all of

the work that's been done is based on the agreement that was signed by the three

parties, but Bill C-34 actually creates the jurisdictional responsibility. Our

bill recognizes that.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that.

Am I correct? This is almost enabling legislation for, I

understood, the federal role on reserve in Canada and under the constitution.

This is, hopefully, the last essential piece of the puzzle to actually enable

the federal legislation so that this can happen.

Am I accurate there, at least in a ballpark way?

Hon. S. Bond: Essentially, the member opposite has it

correct. However, there are some additional pieces to it which, for example,

allow independent schools or boards of education to enter into agreements with

the first nations education authority.

There are some pieces of this legislation which permit other

actions to take place, but generally speaking, both pieces of legislation in

both Houses actually are enabling legislation to the agreement that was signed

by all three parties.

S. Fraser: That cleared that up for me.

The time lines on this. This is going to take a while to

implement. We have estimates on that. I've heard a few. If you could just, for

the record, let me know what the time lines are. Or if there's a series of

events that might take place over that period of time, if we could see how

that's going to play out.

Hon. S. Bond: I just wanted to confirm with my staff, but

we understand that Bill C-34 has now been brought into force by the federal

government, so that's great news.

Our job now is to, hopefully, see this bill through the House and

then bring, by way of regulation, this bill into force. Once that is done, all

of the technical legalities, so to speak, are taken care of, and we can actually

begin the implementation process. I think the member opposite would absolutely

agree that it's been a long time coming, and the sooner we can get on with it,

the better it would be.

[1455]

In fact, on Friday of last week I met with Regional Chief Shawn

Atleo and also Tyrone McNeil of FNESC to talk about how we can, once this

legislation moves forward, begin the implementation process.

The first step, as the member opposite would know, is encouraging

and working with first nations to actually have them choose whether or not they

become participating first nations. Of course, that's the first step, and it has

to be done with the federal government. They have to identify themselves as

wanting to be participating first nations.

We're eager to get on with that. Once the bill moves through the

House, we then bring it into force, as the federal government has done, and then

we'll begin the task of actually bringing this to life.

S. Fraser: I understand the challenges of this, and I

appreciate that. How will the money flow for these resources that go with this?

The minister has pointed out that we still have to establish who will be

participating. How will that happen? Is there a time line? Is there a budget

already set for an unknown entity, really, at this point?

Hon. S. Bond: Because the First Nations Education Act

relates to governance — or the jurisdiction is first nations land…. These are

band schools. Band schools are funded by the federal government. As we

understand it, the negotiations between the First Nations Education Steering

Committee, or FNESC, and the federal government are ongoing in terms of the

funding that will take place and transfer. But it is a federal responsibility

because these schools, of course, are on first nations land.

[ Page 9560 ]

S. Fraser: Just a question around…. It just came to me now.

We're dealing with another bill — actually we will be later today, very soon —

as we get to the committee stage of the Maa-nulth treaty. Will this mechanism,

this opportunity…? Will everything be the same for those nations that have

already achieved treaty? Is there any effect it might have post-treaty?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, there is not a direct linkage

between treaty first nations and this particular process. Once you have settled

a treaty, you already have the ability to create laws over education in your

particular treaty area. So they would not be participating first nations in this

process.

Certainly, there could be a collaborative approach, but they

already have the jurisdictional responsibility through that treaty process.

There is not a direct link between the two.

S. Fraser: Okay, I understand that from reviewing both the

Tsawwassen and the Maa-nulth — reviewing, living, breathing — treaties for the

last month. But there are resources that go along with this bill — not with the

bill directly. But obviously there's funding, finally, and a mechanism for

dealing with non–first nations students in first nations schools. Currently,

there is no mechanism that I'm aware of for funding that.

There are some changes that are coming about with this bill.

Presumably, those same issues could exist in first nations that have already

achieved treaty. Is that an oversight? Has that been anticipated?

[1500]

Hon. S. Bond: I think it is safe to say to the member

opposite that there is no direct link between the two, and that federal dollars

will be negotiated between FNESC and the federal government in terms of funding

band schools. There is no direct reference to tuition or those kinds of things

in this piece of legislation. The negotiations for funding occur directly

between FNESC and the federal government.

In terms of treaty, those particular treaty nations have

negotiated a particular financial package. They also have jurisdiction in terms

of law-making within their own territory. So there is not a direct link between

the two, and in fact they are quite separate. A treaty first nation cannot be a

participating first nation under this process.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for clearing that up. I

did touch on an issue around the funding for….

I've been to the Kamloops band, and they've got a school on

reserve. This is not a unique situation, so I'm just using it as an example.

Currently, there's no mechanism for them to receive funding for students that

are non–first nations attending those schools. The reality is that that happens,

and I know the minister is aware of that.

There's a cost associated with that. They're not able to achieve

any kind of mitigation or payment for that through the system as it stands. My

understanding is that after we get through this, there will be mechanisms in

place to do that.

I'm seeing a nod. So I'll just give you…. Touch on that.

Hon. S. Bond: Two things that I should add to the previous

answer, because I was thinking about this. First of all, there are cases where

band schools do receive provincial funding, and that is if they become

independent schools. We have a number of first nations schools that are actually

independent schools and would receive funding at either 50 percent or 35

percent, depending on which of the independent school categories they're

approved under. That is a situation that exists today, so I wanted to be clear

about that.

In addition to that, not reflected in the bill but reflected in

the agreement that was signed was the potential that if a first nation becomes a

participating first nation and non-aboriginal children choose to attend that

school as their school of choice — the member opposite is correct — funding

would then follow that student to the particular participating first nation.

Absolutely correct in how it was presented by the member opposite,

not coming from this bill — because again, we discussed what the bill actually

is doing — but coming from the original agreement that was signed between the

three levels of government. That's the difference with that — but absolutely

correct in the way the member presented it.

S. Fraser: I'm going to follow up with another question on

that.

Before I lose my train of thought, you mentioned that there is

funding available for independent schools if they have that status. If there's

funding available for independent schools, are there any that have chosen not to

be independent? What would be the deterrent?

There's obviously an incentive to being an independent school, if

you get funding. Why would a first nation not choose that status, or are there

any examples when they don't?

Hon. S. Bond: Actually, there are a large number. I'm

trying to think, and I'll have Dave or Trish…. Trish probably knows the exact

number of band schools there are in the province, but there is a much smaller

number of those that choose to be independent schools. There is some thinking

behind that. Much of it is to do with what the expectations and regulations are

when you become an independent school in order to receive funding.

[1505]

For example, you must use provincial curriculum and have certified

teachers that are certified in a particular way. That is why this act is so

exciting for them, because it really legitimizes and gives them jurisdiction and

education-making law over their own schools. Many schools choose not to pursue

the independent school path partly because there is a set of expectations that

come with that, including using curriculum that is provincial

[ Page 9561 ]

curriculum and all of the regulations that go with achieving that independent

school status.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. There are, give

or take, 200 different first nations in B.C. that are recognized. I don't know

how many schools are associated with that. That would be an interesting

question. But thanks for the answer.

Going back…. With the agreement signed with FNESC, there will be

the mechanism for funding to flow in a situation where it doesn't flow right

now. It's arguably a hardship, and it's causing some problems resource-wise for

the existing schools that are not receiving that funding.

Considering the time line on this whole Bill 46, it's still a long

way away before we're going to see this actually hit the ground. I'm sure the

minister has heard and is aware that that funding is needed now. I mean, it's

needed yesterday. The problem exists now where resources are being stretched

thinner than they should be because that funding isn't made available.

Is there any way that can be expedited, somehow made a priority,

so it can predate as quickly as possible the actual time line for this bill?

Hon. S. Bond: I just want to give the member some context

here. There are approximately 6,100 students attending 130 on-reserve schools in

British Columbia; 22 of those schools are classified as independent schools.

Where provincial responsibility for funding lies is when they're

attached to an independent school. Schools who chose to be independent schools —

funding is flowing to them at the appropriate levels.

I'm certain that from FNESC's perspective, the negotiations will

go very quickly. They will want to be aggressive. The vast majority of funding

for students on reserve comes from the federal government, and that negotiation

is underway.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. I want to thank

the staff for working on this and thank the minister for her work on this and

thank Nathan and Tyrone and all the people that have worked on this on behalf of

first nations and FNESC.

Anything you can do to get that funding to the schools that are

not getting it now, in an expedited manner, will be of great assistance to the

students and to those communities. I just wanted to get that on the record, and

I know the minister is nodding her head. She understands it is important. So I

thank you, and I'm done. Let's move this forward quickly.

Sections 1 to 19 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

Hon. S. Bond: Thank you very much to the member opposite

for his support and passion through this process. It's been appreciated. I think

FNESC and others will be very happy today with the place we find ourselves.

With that, Madam Chair, I move the committee rise and report the

bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:10 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[1515]

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

FIRST NATIONS EDUCATION ACT

Bill 46, First Nations Education Act, reported complete without

amendment, read a third time unanimously on a division [See Votes and

Proceedings ] and passed.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call continued committee stage debate on

Bill 45.

[1520]

Committee of the Whole House

MAA-NULTH FIRST NATIONS

FINAL AGREEMENT ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 45; S.

Hammell in the chair.

The committee met at 3:21 p.m.

section 3 (continued) .

G. Gentner: Just a few questions relative to

chapter 10, if

we may. Our fisheries critic has been moved on to some other good work today,

and he sort of passed me some notes. With the assistance of my colleagues, we

can raise them with the minister.

We'll go step by step, if we can. We're looking at 10.1.4 of

chapter 10. My question to the minister is: with these plants and fish under the

fishing right, how will this be monitored?

Hon. M. de Jong: Primary responsibility would continue to

rest with the federal Department of Fisheries.

G. Gentner: What role will the province be playing in any

of this?

Hon. M. de Jong: There will be, as was the case in

Tsawwassen, a fisheries committee. I expect the province's participation in that

committee will be guided, to a certain extent, by the fact that, provincially,

the primary responsibility is for a freshwater fishery.

[ Page 9562 ]

G. Gentner: A freshwater fishery would also include the

sockeye beyond the tidal area of, for example, the Fraser. Would the province

not have some responsibility?

[1525]

Hon. M. de Jong: The intention of the final agreement is

not to purport to amend the constitutional authorities that are divided between

the province and the federal officials. I know that at times, for me at least,

that can be a vexing, confusing delineation to make. But the intention of the

agreement is not to alter that and would be for the respective jurisdictions to

continue to fulfil their constitutional authority.

G. Gentner: I take it from the minister, therefore, that we

are seeing little activity post-treaty involvement relative to fisheries from,

obviously, the B.C. Treaty Commission, the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations

itself and the Minister of Agriculture and Lands. Is that not correct?

Hon. M. de Jong: Unless the member wants to tell me more,

I'm not sure I can anticipate what an ongoing role for the Treaty Commission

would be. If the member has a specific question about that or a set of

assumptions that might prompt me to come to a different conclusion…. At the

moment I don't see much of an ongoing role by the Treaty Commission

post–effective date.

The provincial ministry will continue to play the role and fulfil

the constitutional obligations in the area that it fulfils now.

G. Gentner: One of the examples I use was the involvement

of the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands in the containment of fish. It seems to

be the jurisdiction of the province relative to fin culture. What role can the

minister foresee that ministry playing post-treaty?

Hon. M. de Jong: Should the Maa-Nulth First Nations choose

to pursue tenure opportunities in aquaculture, their relationship and point of

contact with the provincial government would remain as it is now — primarily

with the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, with involvement by the Ministry of

Environment.

G. Gentner: Just moving to 10.1.5. I'll read it out: The

first nation "right to Trade and Barter in accordance with 10.1.4 may be

exercised by a Maa-nulth-aht of that Maa-nulth First Nation except as otherwise

provided in…First Nation Law of the applicable…Nation Government made under

10.1.41c."

Can the minister explain that to me? I, and some of our other

members, am trying to get my head around this. Explain to me what that really

means.

[1530]

Hon. M. de Jong: It is a mechanism by which there is

self-regulation, so it's probably best to read the sections in reverse. So

10.1.41 provides a law-making authority to the Maa-nulth First Nations

government. Any law that they chose to enact would have to be consistent with

the constitutions that have been ratified by the various Maa-nulth First

Nations, but it does afford them the opportunity to regulate the trade and

barter rights that are confirmed by this final agreement amongst their own

members.

G. Gentner: Moving right along to 10.1.7, subsection a., b.

and c., is this for food that has ceremonial purposes only?

Hon. M. de Jong: Subsection which?

G. Gentner: The sections, Minister, under 10.1.7. I'm

trying to get a general feel of whether or not this is to be used for ceremonial

purposes only, or beyond ceremonial.

Hon. M. de Jong: Why don't I start here. The purpose of the

section is to confirm that the Maa-nulth First Nations fishing right, which I

believe is a defined term under the final agreement, exists within a defined

area only. This

section also says that the Maa-nulth can harvest fish outside of

that area as long as they harvest in accordance with provincial and federal

laws, which would require the licensing that is referred to and contemplated in

the section. So it is those two issues that are dealt with in 10.1.7.

G. Gentner: Maybe the minister can kindly direct me to

where, in this chapter, there is mention or reference to ceremonial purposes.

[1535]

Hon. M. de Jong: I'd refer the member to the first section,

10.1.1, which refers to domestic fishing and domestic purposes. The member will

note that those are defined terms, which are dealt with in the

definitions

section.

G. Gentner:

Section 10.1.8, the Minister. Can the minister

define what "Minister" means? Is it referring to federal, provincial or both?

Hon. M. de Jong: Again, "Minister" is a defined term in the

final agreement. "Minister," which is a word that shows up here with a capital M

throughout the final agreement, is defined as: "…the federal or provincial

Minister having responsibility, from time to time, for the exercise of powers in

relation to the matter in question, and any person with authority to act" for

the minister "in respect to the matter in question."

In this section, in most cases this will refer to the federal

Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It could, in certain circumstances, also refer

to the provincial Minister of Environment or provincial fisheries minister to

the extent that they retain authority over freshwater fish, aquatic land,

steelhead, that sort of thing.

G. Gentner:

Section 10.1.8, therefore, also means the

authority of the Minister of Agriculture and Lands relative to aquaculture. Is

that not correct?

[ Page 9563 ]

Hon. M. de Jong: Yes.

G. Gentner: Therefore, the province does have or retain

enormous authority, knowing where, of course, we are going in the province

regarding the privatized fish — or, as we call it, aquaculture. We know that

we're going more and more in that way, it seems to me. Therefore, we have on

record now the view that the province certainly has a major authority to do with

managing the conservation of fish.

The next section, 10.1.9, says: "Fish and Aquatic Plants harvested

under a…Fishing Right cannot be sold.." Does that mean bartering? What's defined

by "sold"?

Hon. M. de Jong: Sort of flipping this on its head, the

phrase "trade and barter" is a defined term. "Sale" is not. But "trade and

barter" is defined as specifically not including sale.

What this is designed to reinforce is the notion that there's no

treaty right to sell fish or aquatic plants. Commercial fishing arrangements

have been addressed in the harvest agreement, and the member knows that, but

that doesn't form part of this final agreement.

G. Gentner: I'm still having a problem with this because of

where we're going with farmed fish. Obviously, that is a private endeavour, and

we may see a contract down the road signed by the first nation and a private

company.

Where does that fit relative to this notion of fish that may not

or cannot be sold?

[1540]

Hon. M. de Jong: I wonder if the disconnect here is that….

If I listen to the member, he seems, perhaps, to be suggesting that if the right

is not specifically provided for in this agreement, it can't happen. That's not

the case. Under a separate aquaculture tenure, that right can exist. It would be

regulated by that tenure just as it would be for any other similar tenure

holder.

G. Gentner: So this

section here, 10.1.9, is specifically

about commercial fisheries and the fisheries for domestic use.

Hon. M. de Jong: This

section is intended to confirm that

to the extent that one of the Maa-nulth First Nations has the right to sell

fish, that authority will come from another source and will not be

constitutionalized within the final agreement.

G. Gentner: That authority, therefore, would be the federal

government?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, partly, but not, as the member has

astutely pointed out, in the case of aquaculture, in which case that authority

derives from the province.

G. Gentner: So we're establishing here the role the

province is going to play in this important treaty and the leadership that it

must take throughout the whole fishery debate — not just commercial but, of

course, the finfish or farm-fish industry. I'm glad we've been able to establish

that.

Moving to 10.1.10, the next section: "British Columbia may

authorize uses of or Dispose of provincial Crown land…." Can the minister give

us an example, first of all, of why this is here and give an example relative to

the fisheries — a circumstance where he may see this happening.

[1545]

Hon. M. de Jong: This section, included as a means of

protecting the provincial Crown interest, is intended to ensure that in

exercising the rights that are provided for in this

chapter in the final

agreement, the rights that the Crown and the right that the province of B.C.

continues to hold over Crown land and for authorized uses of that Crown land,

fishing rights can't be exercised in a way that frustrates the rights the Crown

has to those lands or to the authorized uses on those lands.

G. Gentner: I get that part. However, the dispositions

cannot be denied to the first nation — the reasonable opportunity. Can the

minister explain to us what that means — "the reasonable opportunity to harvest

Fish and Aquatic Plants"?

Hon. M. de Jong: Which subsection?

G. Gentner: It's 10.1.10.

Hon. M. de Jong: Probably best described as the balance

section.

I hope this helps the member. The notion here is that on the one

hand, fishing rights can't be exercised in a way that frustrates the ability

that the Crown has to make use of the land, including disposing of the land in

ways that it is authorized to do so. Conversely, the Crown can't exercise those

rights for authorized uses or, ultimately, disposition in a way that frustrates

the ability that the Maa-nulth First Nations have to exercise their fisheries

rights.

The example that Chief Negotiator Lofthouse provided to me was,

for example, a decision by the Crown to sever or cut off an access road to a

fishing ground, which would be a step that would ultimately frustrate the

ability to exercise a right contained within this agreement.

G. Gentner: The minister gives an example of a stream or

road to an area where there is anticipated fish. Does that also apply to an

agreement between the first nation and a private fish farm operator who may need

access to an area vis-à-vis through Crown land?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm going to suggest to the member that

the more appropriate authority for the response to that kind of a scenario is

contained within the access

chapter of the agreement.

G. Gentner: Of course, my apologies to the minister. I

wasn't here. My understanding is that we've dealt with that

section — access.

[ Page 9564 ]

Interjection.

G. Gentner: Well, it brings to mind, therefore, again to

the minister…. Why I'm raising it is because we are moving in a certain

direction regarding privatized fish, albeit we have to think about where we

could be in 20 or 30 years from now.

[1550]

The first nations certainly may — although at this time, it

doesn't appear they will — entertain a view of fish farming. The minister gave

an example of access regarding the ability to find fish through Crown land, and

yet he's unwilling to give me an example of a similar access. He refers me to

the access part of the treaty, and yet he just earlier talked about an example.

I don't know. Maybe you'll indulge me, Minister. Hopefully, you

can answer the question regarding access through Crown land in order to

facilitate a fish farm.

Hon. M. de Jong: I apologize for the delay.

The provision we're dealing with here is obviously a general

provision that is designed to ensure that in exercising its rights — legitimate

rights and constitutional rights and responsibilities — one party doesn't

frustrate the other unreasonably — in that second party exercising their rights

under the terms of this agreement or constitutionally.

If the member is asking me to point out or confirm whether or not

there are specific provisions in the agreement that would guarantee access to an

aquaculture site, I can't do that, because I don't believe such provisions

exist. There are general access provisions that conceivably could have some

application, but I can't point the member to a specific

section of the agreement

that says in these circumstances, access will be guaranteed or governs the means

by which access would be provided to an aquaculture site.

G. Gentner: Thank you to the minister for clarifying that.

If the first nation enters into an agreement with a private fish farm contract

and that is agreeable to the province through the Ministries of, let's say,

Environment and, of course, of Agriculture and Lands, then the chances are that

access would probably be granted — if I have it correct.

The next

section is 10.1.11. I just want to know: if there's

disagreement on this inability of access, what type of arbitration is awarded?

How does that come about? Is there a committee that's going to deal with it?

[1555]

Hon. M. de Jong: Here's how this kind of a provision would

work. Of course, the provisions are built around the hope and belief that, in

situations like this, the parties can sit down and hash out an agreement that

works for all of the parties that are involved. In any event where that doesn't

happen — in the type of scenario contemplated in this

section — one of the

parties, or both or three, has the option of triggering the dispute resolution

provisions, which would settle the question of process around how the

substantive dispute would be settled.

The parties would say: "Well, we can't figure out how to get to a

solution here. We can't actually even agree on how to engage to begin the

process of finding a solution. Let's refer that question, and let's trigger the

dispute resolution provisions of the agreement and arrive by that at a process

by which we could tackle the substantive issue."

Again, obviously the parties would be interested in avoiding that

level of formality, but the provisions are there where it becomes necessary, if

it does become necessary. In that case, any one of the parties would have the

option of availing themselves of those dispute resolution provisions of the

agreement.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

G. Gentner: There are other issues relative to what the

minister said that sort of spur other questions, but maybe we can return to it

before we leave this chapter. So 10.1.17: "Nothing in this Agreement alters

Federal Law or Provincial Law in respect of property in Fish or Aquatic Plants."

Now, I just want to be clear. This is going to be a general

question, but we have to understand exactly what that means. In many ways we're

entering new ground here, and this could very well be the template. Could the

minister briefly lay out the provincial and federal roles regarding jurisdiction

of fish and aquatic plants. I just want to know for sure what this

section

refers to.

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member. I understand his

question. I actually understand the relevance of the member's question, and I'm

sure the member will be suspicious that I'm trying to avoid a comprehensive

answer. The difficulty is that the answer is comprehensive enough to take us

through the next three days of discussion.

[1600]

It's actually a combination of things that determine jurisdiction:

obviously, the Constitution Act — you start there — and the legislation that has

been born out of that in the two jurisdictions, and then volumes of common-law

jurisprudence that have arisen interpreting the constitution in that

legislation. I'm not going to attempt to summarize what that volume of material

represents.

I can tell the member this. The

section is there to confirm that

the final agreement deals with the rights of each Maa-nulth First Nation to

harvest fish and aquatic plants, but it's specifically designed to ensure and

confirm that the final agreement does not provide the Maa-nulth First Nations

with any ownership or property interest in fish or aquatic plants. That's the

legal significance of the text and why it is included within the agreement.

G. Gentner: Therefore, following sort of a logical process

here and how this works, if the Maa-nulth do

[ Page 9565 ]

not have any ownership of fish, they are not responsible for the maintenance

of the stocks under this agreement.

Hon. M. de Jong: There clearly are a variety of provisions

here that emphasize the stewardship role that the Maa-nulth are going to play,

their interest in playing that role and their responsibilities in that respect

in terms of the joint committees.

I think the member's question was: does the agreement or this

provision in the agreement impose any constitutional responsibility for fish or

constitutional responsibility — I should use that word carefully — for the

maintenance of fish and habitat? The answer is no, that responsibility continues

to be retained and remains with the federal minister or, in situations where

there is a provincial authority, with the provincial minister.

G. Gentner: Moving to 10.1.19, the allocations. Looking at

the schedules earlier, I want to go quickly to the ocean chinook allocations. I

think it's about 1,800 pieces plus 1.78 percent of the total allowable catch, or

TAC. How does the minister know of the state of the health of all of the chinook

stocks to give a fixed number?

Hon. M. de Jong: Three parts, I think, to my answer on this

one. First of all, all of the allocations that we are going to talk about are,

of course, subject to conservation. In a worst-case scenario where the fish

isn't there, those allocations are impacted.

[1605]

Secondly, I will acknowledge that we are largely relying upon the

expertise contained within the federal Department of Fisheries in arriving at

some of these numbers, which in many cases are based upon studies of historic

harvest levels. I don't want to pretend that I either have the expertise or am

in a position to authoritatively speak to the science and methodology that was

employed in arriving at these numbers. But I'll end where I began, with the

observation that they are subject to conservation.

G. Gentner: I suppose what rolls off that question…. If

there was a ministry that was going to take responsibility and show some

leadership relative to depletion of stocks within the province, which ministry

would take on that role? Would it be the Ministry of Environment, or would it be

the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands?

Hon. M. de Jong: The provincial Ministry of Environment has

worked and continues to work closely with the federal Department of Fisheries

and Oceans. Again, I will say that in pursuit of that collaboration and working

relationship it is the federal Department of Fisheries that is in possession of

the data and the historic information that gives rise to, and ultimately does

make, the decision around these oceangoing fish.

There is a working relationship, and that will continue to be the

case. But insofar as these allocations are concerned, the government of British

Columbia has relied, in large measure, on the expertise contained within the

federal Department of Fisheries.

G. Gentner: The agreement is premised, therefore, on the

success of a fishery that's stewarded through the federal government. Obviously,

the minister and his government must have a lot of trust in the federal

government to fulfil that stewardship, because they have entered into this

agreement.

Therefore, my question is…. Let's look, for example, at the

crashing chinook stocks on the Cowichan River. Can the minister be sure that

this treaty will not impact chinook populations that are in trouble?

[1610]

Hon. M. de Jong: A couple of things. The member prefaced

his remarks with an observation around the question of trust, and I want to take

a moment to address that.

We certainly try to work collaboratively and cooperatively with

other levels of government — in this case, the federal government — and there

are issues that come along from time to time that sometimes challenge us to find

solutions. It is actually about more than trust. It also reflects a recognition

of the constitutional reality that we have in this country.

We could spend a delightful afternoon, I think, talking about the

wisdom of a constitutional structuring of fisheries management in this country,

and one day perhaps we'll do that. But we are bound by the constitutional

reality with which we presently live. That brings us together, and we try to

work with that as best we can.

I wanted to ask the member…. I thought his question related to

potential impacts of the treaty on the fishery. I think he was a little more

specific than that, and I have forgotten how so, but could he assist me a little

bit with what he means by that and what aspect? There's going to be an impact,

because they're going to catch fish, or they're entitled to catch fish. I'm sure

that the member, though, has a more specific interest or issue that he wishes to

canvass.

G. Gentner: The chinook stock along the west coast is a

very valuable resource, and anybody who has fished off Bamfield and Ucluelet

knows that that resource has been dwindling. I welcome this agreement, because

it certainly gives the first nations peoples a rightful fishery, which they have

enjoyed and should continue to enjoy.

We talked briefly regarding the need to be somewhat prudent and

very thoughtful on how that fishery is managed in order that all first nations

and also, in particular, the commercial fishery, what will be left of it…. But

I'm thinking more or less, of course, of the recreational fishery.

It's a major industry. It is something this province is obviously

very much in tune with. It is part of our ecotourism. It is part of a huge

industry up and down the coast, and it brings people here. Even when we have

times of economic despair and trouble, it is a magnet to bring many people to

the west coast.

[ Page 9566 ]

I'm intrigued with this, because I want to know what the

recreation allocation is for non–west coast chinooks in this overall allocation

that we find in this treaty.

[1615]

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the member's question is about the

relationship between the fish allocations that exist pursuant to this agreement

and possibly the harvest agreement. I will ask the member to clarify. Is it the

treaty allocation or the harvest agreement allocation — or maybe both? Although,

of course, they are dealt with very differently. The allocations that take place

on an annualized basis with respect to the commercial fishery…. The member's

right. It's a valuable activity, and lots of communities and small businesses

and the province itself enjoy benefits associated with the commercial fishery.

But is the question about how allocations under either the treaty

or the harvest agreement impact on the federal allocation to the sport fishery?

Is that the essence of the question?

G. Gentner: Regarding the comparative to the harvest

agreement and the overall strategy that will hopefully retain a very viable

sport fishery, I'm intrigued to know what type of recreational allocation for

non–west coast chinooks will be left to keep the sport fishery viable.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think it's fair to say, without

purporting to be an expert, that we recognize the value of the sport fishery and

believe that the federal Department of Fisheries similarly recognizes the value

and benefits associated with that sport fishery. Further, we are proceeding on

the strength of the belief that the allocations that are contained here do not

preclude the continuation of the sport fishery — that they can live side by

side.

It is true that insofar as the final agreement is concerned, there

is a priority granted to that fish, and it would be fair for the member to

present his analysis recognizing that fact — that insofar as the allocation

contained within the final agreement, it would enjoy a priority over a sport

fishery allocation.

G. Gentner: I'll move off spring salmon, probably one of

the most exciting fish you can land as a sport fisher. It certainly is a marvel

in the fishery community for those who travel a great distance to come here.

Hopefully, our communities in Bamfield and, of course, in other areas of the

west coast will be sustained with this working relationship between all three

parties, not only between the first nations and the federal government but the

invaluable interests and concern the province must contain and sustain.

Just before I move to sockeye salmon, I'll quickly look at the

coho, if I can, that's described in

schedule 3. The coho allocation is split

into ocean and terminal. Ocean stocks are of the non–Vancouver Island origin,

and the terminal are stocks originating in Barkley Sound. We're looking at…. I

think ocean coho is about 7,000 fish, and terminal is about 1,200 pieces, when

stocks are critical; to 3,600, when stocks are abundant.

[1620]

Can the minister explain…? Obviously, there's been some discussion

here, if you know anything about coho, with the Ministry of Environment and, of

course, with the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands specifically, because the

coho is one species that seems to be infected by the sea lice from fish farms.

How did the minister reach these allocations?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think it's important to point out that

through the course of these negotiations, as I said earlier, on this part of the

agreement the Department of Fisheries and Oceans took the lead. We sought

assurance that the allocations being proposed out of that negotiation were

sustainable, based on the best evidence that was available, and we relied upon

the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to present that evidence.

The numbers, in addition to having been influenced by notions of

sustainability and conservation, are also the product of a negotiation with the

Maa-nulth First Nations. In reaching them, the Department of Fisheries and

Oceans would have had access, obviously, to their data bank — historic fish

counts, harvest data — and would also, as they do on an ongoing basis, have

taken into account issues around disease control and disease management.

I will not pretend to be able to explain to the hon. member how

some of those formulas work and are applied on a modelling basis, but I did

receive assurance that they were employed. They will continue to be employed,

going further, recognizing the very fact that the member has referred to, which

is that fish stocks and particularly certain species of fish stocks are fragile,

They're much more fragile, perhaps, than we once thought, and if we are going to

ensure that there is a sustainable fishery, we are going to have to be

responsible. "We" means all of us — feds, province, first nations, sport

fishers, everyone involved — being responsible and realistic about the

allocations that occur.

G. Gentner: I don't want to spend too much time on coho,

but the minister probably knows better than I that, from a sport fishery

perspective, the coho are important because they sort of stretch out the

ecotourist season. The coho run quite a bit later. They can run all the way into

October. For small communities, that does bring a little extra change to the

local economy.

The nutrients that flow from rivers. That type of riparian

habitat, which is not monitored by the federal government, is important and does

come under the Ministry of Environment.

The minister mentioned the business of needed access to data banks

and harvest data. My question is: what role will the first nations play in the

continued collection of that data? What agency will be responsible for

monitoring that?

[1625]

Hon. M. de Jong: There will, of course, be a role. I'm

going to refer the member to

section 10.4 in the chapter. Rather than my reading

out all of the various

[ Page 9567 ]

provisions about how that involvement will occur, there may be specific

things that the member wants to explore.

G. Gentner: I'm just standing here to give a heads-up to

the ever-effervescent member for Yale-Lillooet, who wants to talk a little bit

about sockeye, because his community is very much impacted by it.

H. Lali: Before I ask the question, as this is my first

opportunity to do so on the treaty — I didn't have a chance to talk in second

reading — I want to put on the record that I support the Maa-nulth treaty and,

obviously, will be supporting it when voting time comes.

Having put that on the record, I want to read from page 95 of Bill

45's schedule, the first nations final agreement act, that's there. Under

schedule 5, "Sockeye Salmon Allocation," number 1 in this schedule: "'Fraser

River Sockeye Salmon Canadian Total Allowable Catch' means the amount

established by the Minister that is calculated to be available for the harvest

in Canadian waters by aboriginal, commercial and recreational fisheries of

sockeye salmon that originate in the Fraser River watershed."

I'd just like to ask the minister: under this treaty, are the

Maa-nulth entitled to a portion of the Fraser River sockeye run?

Hon. M. de Jong: The answer is yes to that question.

H. Lali: Then further, under 2, same schedule, on page 96,

it says: "Each year, the Maa-nulth Fish Allocation for sockeye salmon is…b. an

amount of Fraser River sockeye salmon equal to 0.13366% of the Fraser River

Sockeye Salmon Canadian Total Allowable Catch."

Could the minister explain how that figure was derived?

[1630]

Hon. M. de Jong: The process that was undertaken was not

dissimilar to the one the member and I discussed when we were talking about the

Tsawwassen treaty.

It is, first of all, a function of a negotiation, a negotiation

that's largely led by the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans. But it is

guided by, as I mentioned to the member's colleague, an overriding concern

around conservation sustainability — allocations are, of course, subject to that

— and also built around a belief in the need to ensure that, going forward,

formulas are being applied and quantums are being established that are

sustainable, recognizing that the fish in the Fraser watershed are also relied

upon by others in a variety of different ways and in different communities.

Taking into account those needs, those interests and those

entitlements and the recognition that they extend right through the Fraser

watershed…. They were all factored into the discussion in the negotiation.

Ultimately the parties, including the province, which is signing off on this

provision, have concluded that this represents a fair, equitable, sustainable

allocation that will ensure a sustainable Fraser fishery.

H. Lali: If I understand it correctly, the minister said

that in terms of establishing this formula, if I may call it that, it was

different from how it was done with the Tsawwassen treaty. I guess the minister

read my mind in that I would be making some sort of a connection there.

He used the terminology that the process was different because it

was done through negotiation. Am I to understand correctly that aside from a

couple of the criteria the minister mentioned — obviously, sustainability of the

resource is paramount, as we all understand — that really there was no concrete

set of criteria by which it was established what the formula would be? Rather,

it was through negotiations.

If I understand correctly, the Maa-nulth had a certain figure or

an idea in their mind that they came to the table with to negotiate, and it was

through back-and-forth that they were able to come up with some sort of a figure

that they could agree on. That figure was not based on any kind of justifiable

criteria — on numbers of the population or the amount of fish that would be

coming back. Rather, it was something that was a negotiating tactic.

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm sorry. I want to stop for a moment and

clarify. I think the member, just a moment ago…. The fault may be mine, if I

didn't speak clearly. What I intended to convey in the earlier response was that

the process was similar.

I seem to have left the member with the impression that the

process that was employed here was somehow different from that employed in the

case of the Tsawwassen. That is not the case. The approach was similar to what

was employed in the case of the Tsawwassen.

H. Lali: Then could the minister perhaps explain to me what

that entails under

schedule 5,

section 2.b.?

Whereas for some of the other

categories there are specific numbers that are put in place, here you have a

percentage figure.

Could the minister give me some sort of an idea, based on whatever

the overall catch might be for the entire Fraser system? That 0.13366 percent

represents a certain amount of fish. Could the minister please give me some

examples?

[1635]

Hon. M. de Jong: I didn't mean to avoid the member's

earlier submission. I wanted to clarify what I thought was a misunderstanding

between him and me. The earlier submission seemed to be a suggestion that these

allocations and this specific allocation for the Maa-nulth are drawn up in a

vacuum. That's just not the case.

It's also not fair to suggest that this was merely a case of one

party saying, "We want something," and another party saying: "Well, bring your

number, and

[ Page 9568 ]

we'll bring our number, and we'll work our way to the middle."

In fact, the parties were satisfied that there is an historical

link here, that the draw on the Fraser salmon was built around historical links

between the Maa-nulth, their communities and that run. What follows, then, is a

discussion built around the numbers of people involved, conservation

requirements, and so on and so forth. There's a combination of factors that go

in. It's based on an initial acceptance of the proposition that there is a link

between the run and the Maa-nulth First Nations.

The Chair: Members, may I remind you that the people who

are carrying on the debate are having difficulty hearing. Could you please keep

your voices extremely low if you must converse.

H. Lali: I'm just going to move on to

section 3, and I'll

read from here. It says, "Where a Maa nulth First Nation harvests sockeye salmon

under its Maa nulth First Nation Fishing Right at a time and in a location where

a harvest of," and then: "b. Fraser River Sockeye Salmon is authorized by the

Minister, those sockeye salmon are counted as Fraser River Sockeye Salmon."

Could the minister sort of explain to me what that

section means?

If he could clarify that for me.

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm not an expert, but I do know this:

identifying salmon and sourcing them is far from a precise or exact science.

There is, apparently, some means by which that can be done genetically. That can

be very expensive, and doing it for every single salmon caught is not realistic.

When there are openings and locations are identified, the experts, the

biologists, have a sense of when the runs are coming through particular areas.

[1640]

For the purpose of accounting for fish and assigning them to the

various allocations, certain assumptions are made. This

section speaks to those

assumptions. A fish caught at this place at this particular time during the

course of a particular opening is deemed to have…. That count is assigned to a

particular allocation.

Is it 100-percent accurate? I suspect not, but it's the mechanism

that is used, has been used, continues to be used for an accounting of what is

caught, of what is caught by whom, and for the assignment against which

particular fishery or allocation.

H. Lali: Let's assume, just for discussion, that the annual

allowable catch for the Fraser River sockeye salmon is 500,000, and what the

Maa-nulth catch as part of their 0.13366 percent comes off of that 500,000, and

what is remaining is then available for other first nations; for the commercial

or sports fishery; and for folks that are from the mouth of the Fraser River to

its origin, including its tributary.

Is that what is intended here — that that comes off, and the

remainder is then available for whoever falls in line after that? What you've

got is…. The Maa-nulth are basically out there on the west coast of Vancouver

Island having the first impact with the fish coming from the Pacific Ocean going

past the Island on their way up into the mouth of the Fraser.

Obviously, they're at the first point of being able to catch,

before other categories have a chance to get at it.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think I understand the essence of the

member's question and concern. We canvassed some of this in terms of the

Maa-nulth and the fact that there are others who rely upon the salmon who are

right along the Fraser watershed, right up through where the member lives and

into the Cariboo-Chilcotin and on past Prince George.

[1645]

The first thing I want to say is that we're not talking here about

a priority fishery. It is guided by available fish stocks. I think the point

that the member makes — that officials who are managing this will have to be

cognizant of; and I agree with the member — is that, to the extent that

decisions are made to adjust amounts based on one's knowledge of the returning

fish run, one must be careful about not bestowing a de facto advantage on those

located closer to where the earliest fish counts take place. I think there's

recognition of that fact. That's why it's built around historical data. There's

an ongoing vigilance that's going to have to be applied.

There is, again, a recognition that this is a resource we need to

share, that needs to be available to first nations and needs to be sustainable.

Even in the case of aboriginal entitlement, if we overstep the bounds of what is

sustainable in conservation, the equation is going to get awfully small in

future years.

I think I understand the member's point and can say that there is

recognition of that fact. By virtue of their location, those who make decisions

about adjusting allocation amounts, as is contemplated under this agreement,

will also need to take that into account and, I'm satisfied, are aware of that

fact.

H. Lali: I take that to mean yes, so that a certain portion

of the annual catch is apportioned to aboriginal fishery. Maa-nulth being at the

front end there, whatever they catch actually would come off that total. That

would then be available to those that are upstream or upriver or up-coast, I

guess — the first point of Vancouver Island, of intersection for the route of

the returning Fraser River sockeye salmon.

Here's where the problem lies. In the Tsawwassen treaty, I pointed

out that we've got, I think, almost six dozen separate aboriginal bands from the

mouth of the Fraser to the origin within the watershed. Any aboriginal fishery

that exists for sockeye salmon on the Fraser would be shared amongst all of

those almost six dozen Indian bands, in terms of the aboriginal portion of it.

But now we learn that the Maa-nulth would get a share of that

returning Fraser River sockeye salmon before the nearly six dozen first nations

on the Fraser River system get a chance to get at their share, to be able to

catch that fish. There may be others. As other

[ Page 9569 ]

treaties on Vancouver Island or within the Georgia Basin get consummated

before the Fraser River and upriver treaties get consummated, that number will

ultimately decrease in terms of the availability of fish under the aboriginal

fishery for the nearly six dozen Indian bands on the Fraser River system.

Am I correct?

[1650]

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the assertion is that the resource

is being shared, and that sharing of the resource amongst those who are sharing

that resource…. The allocation received by one impacts others. I think that's

true. We can apply that as we move up the river. We talked about the Maa-nulth.

We talk about other bands past which that run takes place, their entitlement

impacts on that. We move into Tsawwassen, up through New Westminster and

Langley, Kwantlen and through the Stó:lô bands. The member talks about the

number of bands involved, the other people with an interest, be they sport

fishers, commercial fisheries — the fact that we are sharing this resource. It

does all have an impact.

That's why I think the continued oversight of the federal

minister, the federal Department of Fisheries, is important, because there will

be important and frequently, I'm sure, difficult and equally, I'm sure,

unpopular decisions to be made about that allocation based on fish counts, based

on anticipated runs. I don't think that's going to change.

I think what we're trying to do through agreements like this is

bring greater clarity to what those entitlements are, what those allocations are

going to be, how they are going to be guided by conservation and how they are

going to be influenced by the fact that the resource needs to be shared. No one

gets everything they want to the disadvantage of other groups — other first

nations, other interested parties.

H. Lali: I don't disagree with the minister in terms of the

sharing of the resource. I fully anticipate that and agree that the resource has

to be shared. Where the issue comes into light is that there was an assumption —

I guess wrongly, on my part — that the nearly six dozen bands on the Fraser

River system would be the ones who would be sharing that Fraser River sockeye

salmon allocation for the aboriginal fishery. I guess I was mistaken, because

other folks in the Georgia basin would also be sharing in that as well. All of a

sudden the nearly six dozen becomes nearly eight dozen or nine dozen bands.

The problem will become this. There isn't enough resource

available. Unless we start getting historically high levels of Fraser River

sockeye salmon coming back and it grows so that everybody gets a chance to share

in it, there isn't going to be enough to go around for all of the bands upriver

in the Fraser watershed. That's my concern.

As I pointed out to the minister during the Tsawwassen treaty

debate, in my constituency there are 27 Indian bands that are on the Fraser

River system alone. The way it looks…. I'm looking at some of these numbers and

the numbers for Tsawwassen. If you've got nearly six dozen Indian bands in the

Fraser watershed and then you've got, perhaps, two or three dozen or more within

the Georgia basin who will also be sharing the Fraser River sockeye salmon run

for the aboriginal fishery, then we're not going to have enough fish to go

around, especially for those first nations who are not at the front of the

lineup for consummating treaties.

[1655]

In other words, just to give an example, in my constituency of 27

first nations, if about a dozen of them have settled and then it follows the

same situation with others in the Fraser watershed, the fish would probably run

out before they get a chance to actually work out their treaties and negotiate.

This is what it looks like.

Was the thought ever given that there would be some major problems

in the future for those bands that haven't consummated their treaties but others

have, and the fish allocation has run out for the Fraser River sockeye salmon in

terms of the allocation for the aboriginal fishery there?

Hon. M. de Jong: The answer is yes. It has, I think, been

prominent in the thinking of those who we charge with the task of developing the

analysis and modelling to ensure that the allocations we discuss and confirm in

documents like this are sustainable, not just in terms of the signatories to

these agreements but also when extrapolated and applied across a broader

section

of society and other groups.

I don't want to, for the moment, suggest to the member that he

shouldn't be alive to this issue. I think it is responsible to be alive to the

issue. I think it probably extends beyond just the part of the province that the

member represents. I think it's an issue we have to be alive to generally in

terms of sustainable fisheries and allocations, although I understand the

specific interest he has vis-à-vis the first nations in the area of the province

that he represents. I think that it's fair ball for him to articulate that

concern and that interest.

In addition to pointing out the work that has been done, the

specific attention that has been paid to the issue he has raised, I would add

one other thing. As I have been listening to the member, it appears to me that

part of his concern relates to an impression he may have — maybe not — that this

is going to represent a new draw on the Fraser River fishery, the Fraser River

sockeye.

In fact, the Maa-nulth have been harvesting at these levels for

some time. There is a historical link with the Fraser River sockeye fishery.

This defines it with greater precision, but it would be incorrect to suggest

that this represents — not that the member did; I am garnering that impression —

a new draw on that fishery. There has been a historical connection between the

Maa-nulth First Nations and the Fraser River runs. This seeks to define it with

greater clarity and lay that out within the documents.

I don't know if that affords the member any further level of

comfort, and I don't mean to diminish the appropriateness of his raising the

matter as a concern.

[ Page 9570 ]

H. Lali: I think the minister does correctly recognize that

there will be a problem in terms of the latecomers for negotiating treaties as

time passes on. I think the minister would probably then recognize why that

would pose a problem for not just myself, like I'm using, or whoever happens to

be the MLA for Yale-Lillooet.

It's just that because I'm the representative, I'm going to use

that as a test case, but there are so many other representatives…. From the

point of the mouth of the Fraser River to Hope, basically, where my constituency

begins, there are dozens of MLAs who are in a similar position as myself, and

then, of course, upriver from my constituency.

[1700]

I think the minister must recognize the problem that I would face

for — forget just the MLAs — aboriginal people who are going to be latecomers

for signing on to treaties. There is a problem there, and I think the minister

recognizes that. The minister also stated…. When I asked the question if thought

was not given to this, he said: "Yes, thought was given to the fact that we may

run out of fish by the time all the treaties are consummated."

If the thought was given — and I know I asked a similar question

on the Tsawwassen treaty — then was there any thought given that these numbers

that are now being written down as part of treaty-making for the Tsawwassen, the

Maa-nulth and others that will come by are reviewable sometime in the future,

depending on what kind of fish runs we're going to have for Fraser River sockeye

salmon?

Let's say only a third to a half of the treaties are settled, but

the remaining first nations have not settled their treaties with the provincial

and federal government, and they've got no fish. They have had a historical

right to harvest fish on the Fraser River system, but there are no more fish

because they've all been allocated to those treaties that have been consummated

prior to theirs being consummated. That's the problem. Are these numbers then

reviewable? Are these numbers then renegotiable so that everybody…?

The minister talked about sharing, and I agree with him in terms

of sharing the resource so that the latecomer first nations, who will consummate

their treaties sometime in the future, are going to get their fair share of the

access to the aboriginal fishery on the Fraser River system.

That's the question. Are these numbers then reviewable at a future

date so that everybody can benefit?

Hon. M. de Jong: In general, they are. They are, of course,

subject to conservation.

I do want to point the member to

section 10.1.22, and I'll read

this into the record.

"In any year where the Minister determines, in respect of

a species or stock of Fish or Aquatic Plants for which there is a Maa-nulth

Fish Allocation that: a. is a fixed amount; or b. has a minimum amount, that

the quantity of a species or stock of Fish or Aquatic Plant that is available

for harvest is not sufficient to meet all quantities anticipated for

allocations from the species or stock to the Maa-nulth First Nations and other

aboriginal groups…."

I emphasize the phrase "and other aboriginal groups." It says here

specifically that the minister may reduce the Maa-nulth allocation"

That's just one example of how the agreement specifically

contemplates the interest and entitlement of other first nations. That's in the

agreement.

Of course, all of this is subject to conservation and to other

general provisions in the agreement that state that the aboriginal rights of

other first nations cannot be adversely impacted. One such specific provision is

contained here, and I referred to 10.1.22. That's in the schedule.

Hon. Chair, I'm going to ask that the committee take a brief

five-minute recess.

The Chair: At the call of the Chair, I call a five-minute

recess. Actually, let's make it seven minutes. We will reconvene at ten minutes

after five.

The committee recessed from 5:04 p.m. to 5:15 p.m.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

section 3 (continued) .

The Chair: On Bill 45,

section 3, and we are discussing the

schedule,

section 10.

G. Gentner: Under

section 10.1.21, it references the part

about nothing in this agreement creating a responsibility on the part of any

party to remediate contamination. Does that imply that there's no possible

action to any party that is contaminating?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member correctly referred to 2.90 as

well. So 2.90 says that here is where obligations do exist and how those

obligations are to be met in dealing with remediation of contamination; 10.1.21

says that nothing in this

chapter creates obligations that go above and beyond

that. That's why the

section exists and is located in the chapter.

G. Gentner: Remediation of contamination created by an

agreement between a first nation and a fish farm — who is responsible?

Hon. M. de Jong: To the extent that there are issues around

that, they are and will continue to be governed by the existing laws. Nothing in

the treaty alters the responsibility for remediation that is provided for

through either a tenure instrument or existing environmental or fisheries law.

[1720]

G. Gentner: Moving along to the next section, 10.1.22. The

minister referred to it when he addressed a question from the member for

Yale-Lillooet. It says here that "the Minister will take into account any

written

[ Page 9571 ]

recommendations from the Joint Fisheries Committee…." Which minister does

this refer to?

Hon. M. de Jong: Again drawing on the definition of

"minister" that I referred to earlier, generally speaking, this would be the

federal minister, but it is conceivable that at times it would refer to both the

federal minister and the responsible provincial minister.

G. Gentner: The minister "will take into account any

written recommendations from the Joint Fisheries Committee…." Who will sit on

this joint fisheries committee?

Hon. M. de Jong: The composition of the fisheries committee

is contemplated as set out in 10.4.3 and 10.4.4. I think those are the two most

relevant sections in the chapter.

G. Gentner: Sections 10.4.1, 10.4.2, 10.4.6, 10.4.8,

10.4.14, 10.4.16, 10.4.17, 10.4.18, 10.4.20, 10.4.21, 10.4.22, 10.4.23 and

10.4.26 all make reference to it. There's no mention of British Columbia being

included in those sections. Therefore, British Columbia has no seat at the table

of the joint fisheries committee.

Hon. M. de Jong: No, I think I disagree with the member's

interpretation of the provisions. The provisions are designed to provide

options, depending on the circumstances, for provincial involvement.

What the

section is also designed to do is…. Where that option is

exercised to facilitate involvement by the provincial government, the various

sections the member referred to are deemed to be read in a