2006 Legislative Session: Second Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MARCH 30, 2006

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 8, Number 9

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Tributes

Val Anderson

Hon. L.

Reid

Farnworth

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Robert Costall

Simons

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Hockey in Trail

Conroy

Value of older workers

D. Hayer

Cesar Chavez

Chouhan

Coastal sawmilling industry

Cantelon

Ellen Zimmerman

Macdonald

David Dolphin

McIntyre

Oral Questions

Forest and Range Practices Act

Simpson

Hon. R.

Coleman

Forest management plans

Simpson

Hon. R.

Coleman

Trevena

First nations consultation on

forest management plans

Fraser

Hon. R.

Coleman

Richmond speed skating oval costs

H. Bains

Hon. C.

Hansen

J. Kwan

Auditor General oversight of

Olympic Games costs

Fleming

Hon. C.

Hansen

Gas drilling in residential areas

C. Evans

Hon. R.

Neufeld

Gentner

Homeless shelters in Surrey area

Ralston

Hon. R.

Coleman

Municipal election campaign

financing

Farnworth

Hon. I.

Chong

Petitions

C. Wyse

C. Evans

Tabling Documents

Office of the Chief Electoral

Officer, report, Recommendations for Legislative Change, March

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Aboriginal

Relations and Reconciliation

Fraser

Hon. T.

Christensen

Royal Assent to Bills

Forests and Range Statutes

Amendment Act, 2006 (Bill 9)

Income Trust Liability Act (Bill

13)

Small Business and Revenue

Statutes Amendment Act, 2006 (Bill 14)

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment

Act, 2006 (Bill 15)

Attorney General Statutes

Amendment Act, 2006 (Bill 17)

Finance Statutes Amendment Act,

2006 (Bill 18)

Settlement of International

Investment Disputes Act (Bill 19)

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of

Agriculture and Lands

Hon.

P. Bell

B. Ralston

M. Sather

M. Karagianis

[ Page 3533 ]

THURSDAY, MARCH 30, 2006

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

Tributes

VAL ANDERSON

Hon. L. Reid: My dear colleagues, it is with infinite sadness that I rise to advise you of the passing of Valentine Jackson Anderson. We came together to this place in 1991 — one minister and one private member. I was the private member, and Val had served as a minister of the United Church for more than 40 years.

Val Anderson was a friend, a colleague, a builder of families, a believer and an amazing mentor. The hope he carried in his soul for humanity to do better by their neighbour is a work in progress. In fact, he is probably, as we speak, strategizing with Fred Gingell as to how we can all do better. We have all lost an incredible human being who only saw the inherent goodness in people.

He served the people of Vancouver-Langara and the citizens of British Columbia with distinction for more than 14 years. He answered the call to public life with dignity and steadfastness.

It has been an incredible honour for me to serve beside Val Anderson. He was a rare human being, a gentle man with ironclad conviction, and one who brought to life each day the principle of social responsibility. It was a life well lived.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask you to express our deepest sympathies to his wife of 53 years, Joyce Anderson, and their three daughters Carol, Chris and Lynn and their children and families.

To them: thank you for sharing Val Anderson with us.

I would now ask the House to join me in a moment of silence.

[1405]

M. Farnworth: I would like to join with the member for Richmond East and the government caucus from this side of the House in recognizing the contribution Val Anderson made as a member of this House for 14 years.

I, too, joined with him in this House in 1991 as a new MLA, along with the member for Richmond East. Val was someone who struck, I think, all of us in this House with his integrity and his decency and his common touch.

He was someone who represented the citizens of Vancouver-Langara passionately and with all of his energy. His contributions will not be forgotten. I think the letter that the member for North Vancouver–Seymour read out last week was an indication of the esteem in which he held this place and the work that we do, urging us always to remember who it is that we represent and to strive for the best. We on this side join with the members opposite in extending our condolences on behalf of all of us.

Introductions by Members

Hon. J. van Dongen: It's my pleasure today to welcome a delegation from the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region to this Legislature. We had a number of meetings with ministers, with government staff and with members of this House, and I want to thank all members of the House that joined us for the reception at lunchtime.

In the gallery we have Matt Morrison, the executive director of PNWER; Marvin Wodinsky, the consul and program manager for the Canadian consulate general in Seattle; and Roisin McCabe, senior intergovernmental officer for the province of Alberta.

People who I also want to acknowledge, who are not in the gallery but were with us this morning: Glenn Anderson, the president of PNWER, who's a state Representative in the state of Washington; Colin Robertson, the minister and head of the Washington Advocacy Secretariat at the Canadian embassy in Washington D.C.; and U.S. consul general in Vancouver, Lewis Lukens.

I would ask this House to give them all a warm British Columbia welcome.

N. Macdonald: Joining us in the gallery from Edinburgh, Scotland, I have Chirstie Cameron and Donald Cameron. That's my aunt and uncle here from Scotland. Please join me in making them feel welcome.

B. Lekstrom: It's certainly a privilege today to rise in this House and introduce a special guest and good friend of mine, His Worship Mayor Fred Jarvis from the district of Taylor. Mayor Jarvis has served as mayor of the district of Taylor for the past 20 years and prior to that was an alderman — back to the days that preceded our councillors — for six years. So in total, he has served 26 and is going into his 27th year of public service. Fred works tirelessly on behalf of not only the people he represents in Taylor but the entire northeast. Will the House please make him welcome.

D. Chudnovsky: I have a number of introductions to make today. I'm pleased to do so. First, I'd like to introduce to the House a good friend and an old friend, Suzie Mah, who is a teacher in Vancouver and president of the Educators for Distributed Learning organization of the BCTF. Would the House please make Suzie welcome.

Again today we have students from Sir Charles Tupper Secondary School with us. That school is just around the corner from our house in beautiful downtown East Vancouver. They're here with a number of adults and also their teachers Mr. Ferguson, Mr. Mann, Ms. Tswe, Mr. Diel and Mr. Woo. We welcome them here and thank them for coming. Please make them welcome.

[1410]

K. Krueger: I have guests in the House today. Tanya Kaul was my legislative assistant and a legislative assistant to others in our caucus over earlier years.

[ Page 3534 ]

Then she became my executive assistant when I was the government caucus Whip, left us to go back to postgraduate studies and is now on a meteoric rise in the professional civil service. The smart money says she'll be a deputy minister one day. She brought to meet me today Mr. Jason Gilbert, a fine young man who has my preliminary stamp of approval with regard to having a relationship with Ms. Kaul. I want to welcome them both to this House.

B. Simpson: It's my pleasure to introduce two guests in the House today. Mr. Darryl Smith is from Lake Cowichan. Darryl is from Steelworkers Local 2171. As the Minister of Labour will be aware, Darryl produced the video that was shown at the Steelworkers Summit called Invisible Impact . Darryl is currently working on a video that he hopes to show on the Knowledge Network to raise awareness of the forest workers' safety issues. With Darryl — and I had the pleasure of meeting Debbie for the first time today — is Debbie Geddes from Crofton.

Debbie's partner, Ted Gramlich, was the 52-year-old faller who was killed last year, on November 17, 2005. Debbie was here to speak to me about some of her concerns today. Our condolences to Debbie, and welcome to both.

J. McIntyre: I'd like the House to join me in welcoming Kim Syer, who is a full-time elementary learning assistance teacher in the district of West Vancouver. She's involved in professional development at the district level and is also a member of two specialist associations, the Learning Assistance Teachers Association and the Special Education Association. She's served on the executive of the Special Education Association for the past two years. I look forward to meeting with her following question period. Welcome, Kim.

R. Hawes: I'd like the House to join me in welcoming Marie Baldassi, who is a classroom teacher in a grade six-seven classroom in Maple Ridge. She teaches at Yennadon School, which is arguably one of the better schools in the province. She's here to talk about BCTF issues, and I'd like the House to please make her welcome.

R. Cantelon: I rise today to introduce Mr. Rick Jeffery to the House, a man whose prime concern is the future of the coastal forest industry. He is the CEO of the Coast Forest Products Association. I ask the House to make him welcome.

S. Hammell: I'd like to introduce Stephanie Koropatnick. She's a special education teacher who teaches in Vancouver but lives in Surrey. Would the House please make her welcome.

Hon. I. Chong: Today I'm very pleased to introduce to this Legislature a grade-five class from Monterey School — 35 students along with their teacher Mr. Steven Toleikis, who the students refer to as Mr. T.

I met with them earlier today. They are having a personal tour of the Legislature without a guide. They're looking around, but what they're doing is having a real hands-on look at what the Legislature looks like, because they are preparing a small model that will become a centrepiece for a fundraiser on the weekend — for the Tip-a-Fool fundraiser they're raising money for. I know that they're around and they're listening, and I would ask the House to please make them very welcome.

Tributes

ROBERT COSTALL

N. Simons: It's with sadness that I rise on behalf of my colleagues on both sides of the House to convey our deepest sympathies to the family of Pte. Robert Costall. Private Costall died along with eight Afghan soldiers and an American soldier on Wednesday in a remote area some 100 kilometres from Kandahar. Robert Costall was born in Thunder Bay. He moved to Gibsons with his family, where he attended Gibsons Elementary, Elphinstone Secondary, Chatelech Secondary and the Sunshine Coast Alternative School.

[1415]

In Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, Robert found a place where his skills and his ability and attitude were not just recognized but appreciated and welcomed. After joining the military, Robert would return to visit the alternative school where he was an encouraging, inspiring and supportive role model for young people. He last visited just before Christmas.

Robert was 22 years old. He leaves behind his partner Chrissy Hazzard, his infant son Collin and a proud family, including his parents Bonnie and Greg.

On behalf of all British Columbians and Canadians, I ask this House to extend its deepest sympathies to Private Costall's family.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

HOCKEY IN TRAIL

K. Conroy: Yesterday we heard from the member representing Smithers about their efforts to be named Hockeyville. Last night the first 50 finalists were announced, and ten were from B.C. I need to point out to the House that of the ten — and one was Smithers — six are represented by members on this side of the House, including Port Alberni, Lac La Hache, Golden, Gold River, Powell River and, of course, my own community of Trail.

The spirit of community hockey was born in Trail. Hockey started being played in 1898. As long as the ice would freeze, there was hockey. Trail's rich and colourful hockey history is unique — a history of accomplishments and champions that can be claimed by no other community in Canada.

However, it is not only because of Trail's achievements that residents assert an ownership to the Hock-

[ Page 3535 ]

eyville title. It is because Trail's hockey past, present and future are continuously lived in a community spirit that goes beyond the players, beyond the coaches, beyond even the fans to reside within the very fabric of what this community is.

To quote a local youngster, Trail is a hockey paradise. Not only has the Trail junior hockey league produced numerous NHL players — like Ray Ferraro, Steve Tambellini, Steve McCarthy, Shawn Horcoff, Barret Jackman and Adam Deadmarsh — we also had the 1939 and '61 Trail Smoke Eaters world championship teams.

Many folks in our area still remember the game when the Smokies had to beat the Soviets by at least three goals to win. Longtime resident Norm Lenardon scored the winning goal to ensure gold for Canada. The Smokies were the last pure amateur club team to win the world championship for Canada. Ten of the players were either born or raised in Trail.

So to my colleague to the left of me — in seating arrangement only — I look forward to the friendly competition about to ensue. However, with all due respect to my colleagues, I'm sure that by the end of June those of us representing Trail will be thrilled to wear the name Hockeyville on behalf of all of the hockey fans of B.C.

VALUE OF OLDER WORKERS

D. Hayer: Earlier this week this House debated a motion of my colleague from North Vancouver–Lonsdale to end the practice of mandatory retirement. With the skills shortage British Columbia faces today, it is important that we not only eliminate mandatory retirement but actually encourage people to stay in the workforce to pass their skills and knowledge accumulated over their lifetime.

When a skilled and seasoned person leaves the workforce, they take decades of experience and a wealth of knowledge with them — knowledge that in this day and age has an incredible value as we fill the hundreds of thousands of jobs created by the buoyant economy our government has created over the past five years.

For those experienced people, solutions to the problems are second nature. That skill and talent is also very important in regard to worksite safety. A talented and experienced person knows what to do, when to do it and how to do it, without needing training and without making decisions that may cause accident or injury.

[1420]

My constituents often tell me that they enjoy their jobs, plan to continue to contribute and want to pass on their accumulated knowledge to the upcoming generation of workers. If we wish to keep the economy growing and flowing, it is vitally important that we encourage the skilled and talented people to stay in the workplace to pass on their knowledge, to teach new workers their skills, to tap into the experience and their work ethics. We need to retain this vast storehouse of knowledge as long as we can.

CESAR CHAVEZ

R. Chouhan: March 31 marks the birth of one of North America's greatest humanitarians, Cesar Chavez of the United Farm Workers. Last weekend thousands of people joined in celebration of his birthday by attending a special mass and march in Los Angeles, California. Tomorrow thousands worldwide will march in celebration of his life.

Cesar Chavez's vision was simple: to provide farmworkers and other working people with inspiration and tools to share in society's bounty. Who amongst us will ever forget his courage in the 1960s and '70s in support of the most excluded in society — men, women and children that toiled in the fields from sun-up to sundown, seven days a week for a pittance of a wage? They lived in absolute poverty in cabins with dirt floors and no access to health care, schools or even basic toilet facilities.

Working and living conditions for farmworkers were no different in British Columbia. Cesar Chavez inspired me to organize these workers in British Columbia, and he was there with me when we first formed the Canadian Farmworkers Union on April 6, 1980. We marched together in the fields of British Columbia and California to advocate for farmworkers' rights.

Millions throughout the world joined Cesar's cause, including Robert F. Kennedy. When he passed away on April 23, 1993, more than 100,000 people attended his funeral, and I was one of them. Today I ask this House to recognize Cesar Chavez, his incredible life and his accomplishments. Viva la causa, Brother Chavez.

COASTAL SAWMILLING INDUSTRY

R. Cantelon: I rise today to speak to the issue of the coastal sawmilling industry. We are all aware on both sides of this House that the industry is sick. The question is this: is it a terminal illness? The answer needs to be a firm and resolute no.

The trends have been clear. The closure of the Island Phoenix mill in Nanaimo was greeted with resigned acceptance. This mill was highly touted when it first opened. It first went into production some 20 years ago. However, it was outmoded virtually on the day it opened. It had been designed for a disappearing market. Many other factors conspired to cause its demise: the softwood lumber dispute, the collapse of the Japanese market, the strong Canadian dollar and changing markets.

Mr. Speaker, we need to face the facts that the old models will not work. The industry needs to reinvent itself. We need new mills and also new approaches. Innovation has been the trademark of the B.C. forest industry, and there are signs of hope and signs of success.

In discussions I've had with Russ Taylor, publisher of the Wood Markets Monthly, he points to what I would describe as a compartmentalized approach. Currently, successful mills basically operate with no ties to the forest production side. They do not have a marketing

[ Page 3536 ]

division. They custom-cut to contract order, in batches. This requires a mill built to this purpose and a workforce that has adapted to a continually changing production stream, and it works.

New, bigger mills are needed that are designed for second-growth cut, mainly hemlock. The reality is that the new, large production mills will need a new breed of production staff. They will be operating computers that control the production equipment. There will be fewer, more technically trained employees.

Upon these two concepts, a new future can be built. To bring about this change is the challenge. It will require capital investment on a large scale. It will require new attitudes and new ideas from management and from the workforce in order to develop the positive atmosphere that is so crucial in creating confidence in investors. This will not be easy or quick, and it will require real dialogue and real leadership.

ELLEN ZIMMERMAN

N. Macdonald: A constituent of mine, Ellen Zimmerman, was honoured recently by the Yves Rocher Foundation with a conservation award for her work to protect the Columbia wetlands. The Columbia wetlands are an incredible resource, which have been internationally recognized with Ramsar designation given to it by the UN. In her acceptance speech in Paris, Ellen recognized her fellow members of Wildsight, but she also went back to the 1960s and recognized people from the B.C. Wildlife Federation and the Invermere Rod and Gun Club for their work to protect the wetlands back in the 1960s.

[1425]

That was a time when there were people in Victoria that thought a diversion of the Kootenay River into the headwaters of the Columbia would be a good idea for hydro power production. You had local people — such as Ian Jack, Gil Cartwright, Dave White, Bob Campsall, Tommy Sime, Albert Cooper, Dick Anderson, among others — who saw the value of these wetlands and worked to prevent the loss of this wonderful area.

At a recent public meeting at the proposed developments on Columbia Lake and at Jumbo Pass, I saw many of the same people. Their presence at the meeting reminds us that those who live in an area often know what is most precious and important. They know that what can look like wasteland at one time can in fact turn out to be priceless at another time.

The Yves Rocher Foundation honoured Ellen Zimmerman as an individual, but it also honours the wisdom and action of local people working to protect what they see and know to be precious natural resources for generations to come. Congratulations, Ellen.

DAVID DOLPHIN

J. McIntyre: It's with great pleasure that I rise today to pay tribute to the CEO of our B.C. Innovation Council, Dr. David Dolphin, who has just won a prestigious national award. Dr. Dolphin, University of British Columbia chemistry researcher and creator of one of the world's most successful eye disease treatments, has been awarded the 2005 Gerhard Herzberg Canada Gold Medal for Science and Engineering, widely recognized as the country's most prestigious science award.

Last week Prof. Emeritus David Dolphin was announced as this year's recipient of the award by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council. The annual prize, which is named in honour of Canadian Nobel laureate Gerhard Herzberg, was presented at a ceremony in Ottawa. Along with this prestigious award is $1 million in NSERC funding over the next five years.

Dr. Dolphin pioneered the study of a class of light-activated compounds called porphyrins, organic molecules such as chlorophyll that interact with light. His photodynamic therapy research was commercialized in the early '80s when he and then UBC microbiologist Prof. Julia Levy founded one of Canada's most renowned university spinoffs, QLT.

The company manufactures Visudyne, which has been used to treat the most common form of blindness for more than half a million people in 70 countries since 2000 and is apparently the largest-selling ophthalmology project launched. Dr. Dolphin's research has led to more than 160 patents and earned UBC approximately $60 million in royalties.

I'd like to ask the House to join me in congratulating Dr. David Dolphin for his award as well as his significant contribution to life science research that has been translated directly to improving people's lives. I say: well done.

Oral Questions

FOREST AND RANGE PRACTICES ACT

B. Simpson: In 2002 this government introduced the new results-based Forest and Range Practices Act. The act was given a three-year transition period to ease forest companies into the self-regulating regime and to afford them time to prepare the required management plans. This act is due to come into full force in nine months. The new management plans may then be in effect for up to ten years without further government approval or public input.

My question is to the Minister of Forests and Range. Can the Minister of Forests and Range tell this House whether he is satisfied that these new management plans will be approved by year's end?

Hon. R. Coleman: Obviously, that is the goal. We hope that the goal can be accomplished, and we're working towards that goal.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Cariboo North has a supplemental.

B. Simpson: From the input that we're receiving on this side, that goal seems unattainable. In fact, when

[ Page 3537 ]

the minister introduced the new act, he promised that this new act and this new approach would set a higher standard for environmental standards and promote innovation. However, according to a Forest Practices Board report, the draft of which has been leaked to us, the board has significant concerns about the implementation of the act.

[1430]

Specifically, comments such as, "The act is inconsistent with the major criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management" and "The objectives are very confusing," and from a variety of sources: "Regulations demand too little in the way of results and discourage innovation…." Finally: "The plans do not contain sufficient information to be enforceable." That's from the government's own watchdog.

Is the minister telling this House that he is not aware of the Forest Practices Board's concerns?

Hon. R. Coleman: The Forest Practices Board hasn't made that…. Evidently, the member says he has a leaked copy. Therefore, until I see the report and the entire context of it, I will take that question on notice.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member for Cariboo North have a further supplemental? Is it a new question?

B. Simpson: It's a new question.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

FOREST MANAGEMENT PLANS

B. Simpson: We have had three years for this transition period. To date, only about two dozen plans have actually been put forward for approval. There are approximately 400 plans that need to be approved, with only nine months left before full implementation.

My question is to the Minister of Forests and Range. How can the minister expect to push through upwards of 400 plans in nine months and still expect us to believe that we can achieve the high environmental standards and the innovation that were committed to when this act was put in place?

Hon. R. Coleman: The forest industry in British Columbia is recognized by this minister and by this government and by people around the world as one of the most environmentally friendly and best-managed forest sectors in the world.

As the member knows, when you do something new, sometimes there are a few early people, but oftentimes there is a lot of work done on a lot of plans that could all come together in a very short period of time. My staff are working very hard with everybody with regards to all of this. We're going to try and achieve the goal and achieve it in the way that will make the forest industry understand its future sustainability and the importance to British Columbia.

C. Trevena: I commend the Minister of Forests that his department has lots of plans and will try to achieve this goal. However, I think there is a matter of concern. There have been three years to move ahead with this — three years to complete two dozen plans.

We now have about 400 plans outstanding, and at about 30 days to process a plan…. The previous Forests Minister promised that it would take 30 days to approve a plan. At rough estimation, that is about 12,000 days to complete these plans.

My question, again, is to the Minister of Forests. I would like to ask the Minister of Forests whether these plans can be achieved in this time line, up to the high environmental standards that we have been promised.

Hon. R. Coleman: Mr. Speaker, through to the member: I'm glad you've recognized the high environmental standards that British Columbia's forest sector operates within. We are working — my ministry…. I have a very good ministry and very good staff. While they've been doing all of this…. On top of that, they also got it together to actually put back in place a pulp mill in that member's riding, which also was a lot of work. Frankly, it's those types of dedicated people that will work on the land base for the long-term sustainability of jobs in British Columbia in the forest industry.

FIRST NATIONS CONSULTATION ON

FOREST MANAGEMENT PLANS

S. Fraser: It is not just environmental issues and the concerns of the Forest Practices Board at stake with these plans. The former Forests Minister said in 2002: "A key feature of this legislation…is to say loudly and clearly to British Columbians that their input and involvement is not only welcome; it is, in fact, essential."

My question is to the Minister of Forests and Range. Do these management plans meet the tests of the first nations consultation and accommodation and new relationship?

[1435]

Hon. R. Coleman: The Forest and Range Practices Act model improves the opportunities for public input, because the public stakeholders and first nations are asked to identify their interests with regards to the values earlier and sooner in the development process of the plans, which I think is important and which may be the reason that in the early stages of the approval there are not as many there. There is a lot of work being done at the front end. I have a lot of confidence in my ministry staff and look forward to answering the balance of these questions with my staff present in estimates.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Alberni-Qualicum has a supplemental.

S. Fraser: I do. I would be happy to bring this up in estimates, but I'm bringing it up in question period.

[ Page 3538 ]

The minister should have at least two letters on his desk from coastal first nations voicing their concerns about the new act. I will quote from the letters.

"Management plans under the new act don't even come close to providing full information." "The process was developed without proper consultation." "There is no way for first nations to have any meaningful input." "We have no ability to assess archaeological or other impacts." And finally: "The management plans do not meet consultation requirements."

To the Minister of Forests and Range: how does this reconcile with the new relationship?

Hon. R. Coleman: A letter of concern from a first nation is always a concern to me, but government has now signed over 101 forest agreements with first nations in the last number of years. We've passed the 100 number.

I meet with the first nations leadership. I meet with first nations communities. I did that yesterday with another group. Frankly, it's an ongoing cycle of consultation, accommodation, discussion. Sometimes there is comment made that leads to other discussions.

That's the important thing about working with first nations — that we're open to their comments. We're open to working with them and building a future together.

RICHMOND SPEED SKATING OVAL COSTS

H. Bains: The Premier promised B.C. taxpayers and communities that they were safe from Olympic cost overruns. Can the Minister of Economic Development explain, then, why Richmond taxpayers discovered today that they're the ones on the hook for Olympic cost overruns at the speed skating oval?

Hon. C. Hansen: The commitment that the province of British Columbia has made to the staging of the Olympic Games is $600 million, and that is a firm allocation. We've built into that a contingency fund, which allows for some of the increases on the cost pressures from 2002 dollars, which were the basis for the first estimates.

In the case of the speed skating oval, Richmond came to VANOC and made an offer to construct and take responsibility for that venue. But the contribution from the province towards that project is a fixed amount, and it has not increased and has not been asked to be increased.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey-Newton has a supplemental.

H. Bains: I'm surprised that the minister didn't blame the NDP of the 1990s for this fiasco.

Interjections.

H. Bains: I just remind you.

This government promised that VANOC will work within its budget. Now we know how they are keeping that promise — with a sneaky deal that downloaded responsibility onto municipal taxpayers.

Again to the minister: how can the minister justify this secret deal when he promised that VANOC would protect taxpayers and work within its budget?

[1440]

Hon. C. Hansen: When it comes to the Richmond speed skating oval, VANOC has made a commitment in a fixed-dollar amount — half of which is funded from the provincial government and half of which is funded from the federal government. That dollar amount has not gone up, and VANOC and nobody else has asked for that dollar amount to be increased.

J. Kwan: The people of Richmond only learned about their Olympic liability as a result of a media report. There's no accountability from the provincial government. There's no accountability from VANOC. So will the minister tell us how many more deals have been cooked up that hang taxpayers for Olympic cost overruns?

Hon. C. Hansen: I find that question very surprising, coming from a former Minister of Municipal Affairs, because the city of Richmond is a duly elected government unto itself. It is there, elected by the citizens of Richmond. It is the city of Richmond that took on obligations for the construction of a speed skating oval, which they are designing beyond what was expected by VANOC. They're designing it to meet other community objectives.

I think if the member has those kinds of questions, she should direct them to the city of Richmond.

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

J. Kwan: There is only one taxpayer at the end of the day, whether it's from the city of Richmond or from across the province of British Columbia. Would the minister care to tell this House whether or not the Richmond MLAs were asked to talk to the city council in Richmond in promoting the skating oval?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think that at least on this side of the House, we respect the independence of municipal governments in British Columbia. We are not a provincial government that is going to pretend that we are somehow the senior government to municipal governments. We respect their independence and their authority to make those kinds of decisions and to enter into the kind of agreements that they see as appropriate.

If you look at it from the provincial government's perspective, we have put an envelope of money that's available for the staging of the Olympic Games of $600 million, and there is absolutely no request that we have before us to increase that amount.

[ Page 3539 ]

AUDITOR GENERAL OVERSIGHT

OF OLYMPIC GAMES COSTS

R. Fleming: I'm happy to hear from the authors of Bill 75 a lesson on respect for municipalities.

Everyone in B.C. wants the Olympics to succeed, but these kinds of deals raise serious doubt about the final Olympic tab. The Liberals say that the taxpayers are safe. The secret contracts say that they could be fleeced. Why won't this minister put the Auditor General in charge with tough freedom-of-information laws so that B.C. taxpayers are protected from Olympic sticker shock?

Hon. C. Hansen: This is very much an old story. As I have said before in this House and as I have said in estimates last year and will say again now, the Auditor General has the full authority to investigate any aspect of the provincial government's $600 million commitment that he wishes to investigate. In fact, he has been doing just that. He's been in the middle of that process over the last number of weeks and months.

We have assured him that he gets the full cooperation of everyone in my ministry and that if he felt he was having any information withheld from him that he needed in order to do his review, we would certainly use our influence in terms of ensuring that VANOC was cooperative. To my understanding, that's exactly what has happened. He's had full cooperation from all of the parties involved.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: The Auditor General on many occasions has told this government that while he has an active interest in oversight over the Olympic Games project, he lacks the proper budget resources to do the job. Will the minister commit to give the Auditor General the additional resources that he has identified and that he has requested on other occasions to do the proper comprehensive oversight job for the Olympics?

[1445]

Hon. C. Hansen: The Auditor General is an independent officer of this Legislature. This Legislature grants an appropriation to the Auditor General for the operation of his office on an annual basis, and that has in fact been increased. Now, I think it's up to the Auditor General to determine what his priorities are, but certainly if he wants to put a priority on a full audit of the $600 million commitment the province has made, he has the resources to do that.

I think, like all of us that are involved in spending the taxpayers' money, decisions have to be made in terms of where those priorities are, but there is nothing that's preventing him from making a full and comprehensive audit that he seems to….

GAS DRILLING IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS

C. Evans: Yesterday we started in this House to canvass the issue of gas drilling in residential districts, and we identified that there is a 100-metre limit from residents for the industry. Now, the medical health officer of the region advises that as far as she knows, the 100-metre setback between a gas well and a home has no basis in the science of human health.

Then yesterday the Minister of Energy advised us that British Columbia was waiting for a western Canada study to reconsider this matter. Now we learn that it was decided five years ago that this study would not even include research into the health of human beings. Indeed, folks say that the research thus far — five years, $15 million in the spending — has studied the health outcomes of 800 European starlings and 33,000 cows.

How does the minister — and I expect a serious answer; this is about human health and safety — expect the citizens of the Peace River to accept the safety and well-being of their children based on research into the well-being of birds and cattle?

Hon. R. Neufeld: First off, I am awaiting — yes — the report, the

WISSA report. There are about 12 to 14 doctors of medicine that are actually authoring that report. It's a report that will come to government to help us work on some of these issues about setbacks. I've committed to doing that.

In fact, it's interesting to me, today, to hear from a member of the House who was in government from 1991 to 2001 and never once brought up a concern about setbacks anywhere in the province of British Columbia, let alone northeastern British Columbia.

I would ask the member to actually wait till the report comes out. Let's see what the experts say. I know the member doesn't like experts, but let's see what the experts say in that report, and then let's move forward with it from there.

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

C. Evans: My bias for or against experts — or ministers — notwithstanding, and putting aside even the issue of research into the life of birds, the opposition is aware that there are already, regardless of studies and experts, areas where industry is not allowed to drill. In rural areas outside municipalities, we believe these no-drill areas are called deferred tenures. Citizens are calling caucus members and asking us how they obtain a deferred tenure for their rural community.

My question is really simple, and I don't care if he lectures me about the past or not. What we want to know is: how do property owners go about obtaining a deferred tenure if they worry that gas production may be hazardous to the health of their family?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Deferment is obtained through a process. An oil company will request….

[Laughter.]

Actually, it is interesting. You can laugh about it, but it's the same process that was there in the 1990s. You can laugh about it and poke fun at it. Maybe they

[ Page 3540 ]

didn't learn it, Mr. Speaker. It's obvious that that member never learned it.

[1450]

First off, someone requests for some land to be put up for sale. The Oil and Gas Commission, titles division, will actually refer that to the regional district or the municipalities — whoever may or could be impacted — for their input. What happens is that the regional district or the municipalities or people will actually say yes, they would like that deferred for a while — for a multitude of reasons, whatever they see fit. There is a discussion then between titles branch and those municipalities, and if it is in the best interests of deferring it, that's how it is deferred.

Before the member asks the next question and it's about where I live in Charlie Lake, there is a deferment around Charlie Lake. Actually, that was done before I became minister. In fact, it was done during the last administration's time.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

G. Gentner: You know, it's interesting that we have a ministry that is conducting air quality monitoring that seems to be moving from canaries in the mines to starlings on the patch.

Mr. Speaker, my question to the minister is this. How long are these deferred tenures good for? And when the tenure runs out, how does one get a deferred tenure renewed?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Actually, I'd suggest the member read Hansard after question period. I already gave an answer to that question.

Get off the script, and get on to something that you want to ask a question about.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Delta North has a supplemental.

G. Gentner: You know, I don't understand why the minister is so sensitive about this question. I'm not really talking about gas drilling by his house. I just want to know the procedure, the standards, how this has happened. Is it an arbitrary decision? Who makes the decision about the renewal of deferred tenures?

Hon. R. Neufeld: The question has already been answered.

HOMELESS SHELTERS IN SURREY AREA

B. Ralston: My question is to the Minister Responsible for Housing. South Fraser Community Services Society in Surrey announced last week that they will be forced to reduce their Front Room capacity by over 30 spaces, after providing shelter for years to the homeless under strained resources and serving beyond their funded capacity. The government has declined to provide more funding.

What is the minister's message to those businesses who will find more homeless people sleeping on their doorsteps? And what concrete plan does the minister have for the homeless in Surrey?

Hon. R. Coleman: B.C. Housing provides a total of approximately $2 million a year to the several shelters in the Surrey area, including South Fraser, Hyland House, Skeena Place and others. They currently provide South Fraser Community Services, also known as Front Room, with $661,000 a year.

The housing strategy in British Columbia, particularly on homelessness, has had more leadership in the last five years because of the Premier of this province and his Task Force on Homelessness than has ever been shown in this province before. There have been more beds provided in a five-year period than were probably provided in the previous ten or 15 years. We are working with communities for long-term solutions for homelessness in British Columbia, including the task force now moving to the next level of communities to try and find other strategies for homelessness in B.C.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey-Whalley has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: The reason the funding has not increased and kept pace with the growth of the homeless in Surrey…. The homeless numbers in Surrey have increased over 115 percent, and I dare say funding has not increased to that level. Another homeless shelter that the minister references, Hyland House in Newton, turned away — by their own statistics — close to 2,700 homeless people last year.

We know that many of the homeless, according to reports from the Surrey Memorial Hospital, end up in the emergency room, making another situation worse there. My question for the minister is: when is Surrey going to get its share of resources needed to deal with the growing homeless concern and increase the budget for the Surrey homeless?

[1455]

Hon. R. Coleman: The province has increased funding for housing and emergency shelter programs to $193.3 million. That's $70 million more than in 2000-2001.

In addition to that, we've increased the year-round shelter beds from 711 to 868, increased cold-weather beds from 197 to 391. We've increased the annual funding for shelter programs by 40 percent. We've approved a number of other projects, including in communities across the province, as a result of the Premier's Task Force on Homelessness. We're continuing to work to deal with the homeless problem in British Columbia.

[ Page 3541 ]

MUNICIPAL ELECTION

CAMPAIGN FINANCING

M. Farnworth: My question is to the Minister of Community Services. Does the Minister of Community Services believe that local government election campaign financing should be open, transparent and aboveboard?

Hon. I. Chong: For the benefit of the member as well as all members of this House, I just want to advise how our ministry deals with municipal elections. After every municipal election, the ministry staff sends out surveys. We survey election officers and look at comments and any complaints that we have received. We also speak to candidates for any input that they may wish to provide. We will determine if and where changes need to be made. That is done after every municipal election.

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

M. Farnworth: Well, I'd like to take the opportunity to give some feedback to this minister, which hopefully she will take action on. In the city of Coquitlam is an organization called Coquitlam First. They ran in the municipal election campaigns, claiming not to be a political party. However, they campaigned like a political party. They advertised like a political party. They talked like a political party.

Yet when the campaign donations were released for public scrutiny as required by the act —

whereas every other registered political party and civic party in this province abided by the rules and regulations of the act, and provided open and accountable and transparent campaign financing — Coquitlam First failed to do that because they had not registered as a political party.

The result was that there was a loophole which they could drive a campaign bus through. The result was that the mayoralty candidate, for example, received over $50,000 in campaign contributions, another $50,000 in campaign contributions from something called Woody 2005. The result is a lack of confidence by the public.

I'm asking the minister to investigate what has taken place, to investigate this particular loophole in the act and correct it. Will the minister commit to do that?

Hon. I. Chong: As I have indicated, we do have a process in place. That process is to ensure that after every municipal election, we do survey the election officers which are in every municipality. We will receive comments from candidates. We will receive information from those who wish to provide it — any complaints that are made.

The member opposite was a former Minister of Municipal Affairs. He is well aware that these surveys do take place. As a result of the election in 2002, we received a number of inputs which allowed us to provide a new…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. I. Chong: …voters guide. We had a new candidates guide. We had best practices in place. So there is a process in place. I would hope that the member opposite, who was a former Minister of Municipal Affairs, will allow that to take place.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

C. Wyse: I wish to table a petition on behalf of the Friends of Lac des Roches and Birch Lake. The petition contains 700 names of concerned citizens calling upon this House to recognize their democratic rights in voicing their opposition to the proposed development on Lac des Roches and Birch Lake.

[1500]

C. Evans: I rise to present a petition. This is a petition from the people primarily of Creston Valley who desire to see no change in the regulations around what opticians and optometrists are allowed to do in the service of their clients.

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, I have the honour to present

a report of the Chief Electoral Officer, Recommendations for Legislative Change, March 2006 .

Orders of the Day

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

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

ABORIGINAL RELATIONS

AND RECONCILIATION

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); H. Bloy in the chair.

The committee met at 3:04 p.m.

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

S. Fraser: I will have a few questions, if that's all right, to the minister. Can I start speaking on this? Is that all right?

To the minister. In estimates last time we learned that the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Recon-

[ Page 3542 ]

ciliation had signed the fifth agreement-in-principle with the Yekooche First Nation. You said this was an excellent example of a first nation that has really overcome significant hurdles over the course of the last four or five years in terms of social conditions in their community. Can the minister tell me how many other agreements-in-principle have been passed since this last one did?

[1505]

Hon. T. Christensen: I think I missed a bit of the question, but I think the member was asking how many agreements-in-principle have been passed since the Yekooche First Nation agreement-in-principle. That one was last fall. Just recently the Yale agreement-in-principle was passed and signed by the province, the federal government and the Yale first nation.

S. Fraser: For some, this could be considered as fairly slow progress. Would the minister agree that a larger budget and perhaps more staffing would allow for more success or more agreements-in-principle being signed?

Hon. T. Christensen: This may sound a bit flippant, but it's not intended to be. I wish it were that easy, that it was a budget matter alone in order to move treaty tables towards agreements-in-principle.

The reality is that these are often very difficult negotiations, as I'm sure the member can appreciate. Everyone in the House recognizes that the B.C. Treaty Commission process has been ongoing for a long period of time. We're very pleased that since 2003 we now have six agreements-in-principle, and we're working very hard to get those agreements-in-principle to what has, to date, appeared to be that elusive stage of final agreement. I'm optimistic that we're getting there.

It's much more than a budgetary matter that determines getting to agreements-in-principle and getting to final treaties. The reality is it's a case of working through the issues and really coming to terms, obviously, on all three parts in the negotiation — the federal government, the provincial government and, of course, the particular first nation.

S. Fraser: Hello to the staff. Thanks for putting up with this. It's a day or two or three of questions, so I appreciate the time and effort you're putting in.

I understand it's not necessarily a case of resources, but there's been an increase in staffing, I noticed, going through the plan for the ministry. Was it 20 new full-time-equivalents or somewhere in that nature?

Hon. T. Christensen: I should just take a brief moment to introduce the staff that I have here. I'm joined by my Deputy Minister Lorne Brownsey, Assistant Deputy Minister Mike Furey and Assistant Deputy Minister Barbara Reuther.

There has been an increase in the FTE complement to the ministry of 21 FTEs, and that has been done to enhance our ability to get those AIPs to final agreement. It really is a reflection of the stage we are at in the negotiations, and as the member can appreciate, as we see progress, there will in many cases be a much more significant demand on ministry resources to continue to move us forward towards those final agreements.

S. Fraser: Thank you for the answer to that.

We have a new first nations trust, which was announced last week — Bill 11. I know a lot of work went into that. We were getting a little antsy wondering…. It was getting pretty close to the end of fiscal, so I'm happy. I applaud the introduction of the trust.

How much was budgeted for the role of the ministry to bring that about out of the previous…? Could you include full-time staff equivalents for that, if that's possible?

[1510]

Hon. T. Christensen: The resources required within the ministry in terms of staff time and effort to put that in place were just absorbed within the overall staff in the ministry. As the member will appreciate, there's a whole range of things that the ministry is doing on an ongoing basis, and some new initiatives come along, and we're able to do that within the ministry complement we have.

S. Fraser: If I could then — and I appreciate the answer…. I don't need specifics here, but in the last year was there a significant amount of staff time and/or budget put towards putting together or getting this trust into place?

Hon. T. Christensen: There were three or four people within the ministry that were primarily responsible for working with the First Nations Leadership Council in the development of the trust and the legislation that put in place the trust. We also had some assistance, obviously, from the legislative drafters in the Attorney General's ministry, and we very much appreciate that assistance.

Those individuals wouldn't have been working on that full time, so I'm not able to tell the member, from an FTE standpoint, what effort was dedicated to the development of the New Relationship fund. What I can advise the member, though, is that in setting our priorities within the ministry, we're being responsive to the discussion with the First Nations Leadership Council, and as that work around the new relationship generally evolves and priorities are identified, we adjust our efforts accordingly to try and get the work done.

S. Fraser: I understand it's difficult to pinpoint the numbers on that. Those staff will be presumably…. Will their workload be taking up some other function? There's much to do in the ministry. But has there been a change? — because we're coming to the end here. I assume that with the announcement of the trust and the passing of Bill 11…. What's the next priority for that work — if that's possible?

[ Page 3543 ]

[1515]

Hon. T. Christensen: I can assure the member that none of the great folks working in the ministry will suffer from a lack of things to do. I'm sure that's not the member's concern. The reality of the situation is that we have a whole host of priorities ongoing with the First Nations Leadership Council. As we reach milestones and get certain specific projects, I guess you could call them, within that context completed — and I think the New Relationship fund can be categorized as that, because it was on a relatively strict time line — those resources simply get shifted to other of the great long list of priorities and ongoing work within the new relationship.

For example, we're doing considerable work to move forward the Transformative Change Accord that the Premier and the federal government and the First Nations Leadership Council members signed at the conclusion of the first ministers meeting last fall. Both the Premier and I have had very constructive meetings with the new federal Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, and we're very optimistic in terms of being able to move that agenda forward, working with the federal government.

We're in the process of working with the leadership council to define how we best do that work together and bring more life to the goals and the principles set out in the Transformative Change Accord. That's just one example.

Certainly, as I indicated a little bit earlier, now that we have six agreements-in-principle, we think there's a real opportunity to move ahead with success in getting final agreements. That does require us to bring some very specific focus at those tables and really see what the critical issues are that we need to move through in order to get to that point of final agreement. It really is a case of readjusting on an ongoing basis exactly where, as I say, the very good people working in the ministry are putting their focus.

S. Fraser: Thank you for the answer. You anticipated a couple of things. Thank you for the examples. That was going to be my next question.

A couple of things you touched on as far as the Transformative Change Accord. In the accord itself there was recognition that aboriginal and treaty rights exist in B.C., and recognition that this agreement is intended to support social and economic well-being of first nations. I think these are definitely goals to be applauded.

Are any of the new FTEs…? Are they intended to be working towards, let me put it, cross-cultural training — like in ministries, capacity-building within government to get beyond the words and principles of the new relationship? I know it's a challenge, but has there been anything budgeted for that out of the new…? Or have any of the FTEs been sort of set in that direction?

[1520]

Hon. T. Christensen: I appreciate the member's question. We have brought two additional assistant deputy ministers into the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation with the express purpose of helping to lead the work we're doing around the new relationship and the Transformative Change Accord. Certainly, within the ministry as a whole and FTEs across the ministry, we're realigning the FTEs that we have. As I say, the many people that work within the ministry are doing very good work with the priorities that this new ministry now has.

Last fall our discussion was very much on how this ministry was a coming together of what had been the treaty negotiations office and the aboriginal services branch that had been in Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services prior to June of last year. What has happened in the course of the not quite a year since the ministry was first put together is that we're trying to align the staff complement we have and the skill sets that we have within the ministry with the job we have to do.

We're focusing on our priority of getting final agreements within the treaty process, focusing on the priority of the new relationship generally, and then, within that context of the new relationship, also focusing on the priorities identified through the Transformative Change Accord around health, education, housing, economic opportunity and relationships.

Certainly, in terms of the ministry's overall role and the interaction with the balance of government, it's our role to lead the relationship with first nations and aboriginal people across government. We have relationships within government established at the director level, certainly at the deputy minister's level, to ensure that we are engaging across government in moving the overall relationship between the province and first nations and aboriginal people forward.

S. Fraser: There are six agreements-in-principle. Any signing ceremonies anticipated in the very near future?

Hon. T. Christensen: We have had the signing ceremonies for each of the six agreements-in-principle. I've had the privilege of being at the Yekooche signing ceremony as well as, just recently, the signing ceremony for the Yale First Nation's agreement-in-principle.

I would like nothing more than to be able to advise the member that we were scheduling a signing ceremony for a final agreement. The one thing I have learned in the short time I've been in this ministry is not to try and guess exactly when a final agreement may be concluded.

I've said publicly, and I'll say to the member, Mr. Chair, that I am certainly more optimistic than I have ever been that we are close to final agreements. We do have some significant issues to work through at those tables, but there is a real will and a real drive, I believe, on behalf of all parties that need to come to agreement, to get to the — as I've described it — elusive final agreement.

S. Fraser: I'll go a little further down this road, if I may. Governance within first nations — as far as a final agreement, the final signing on these things — is an issue, I know. Is consideration being made for looking

[ Page 3544 ]

at governance models? There's sort of a municipal model that's in place and that we see now, but are alternatives or other options being looked at?

[1525]

Hon. T. Christensen: Certainly, we're in negotiation on a host of issues all the time. As the member will appreciate, a negotiation is very much a bit of a back-and-forth exercise. That's the nature of negotiations.

When we talk about governance, there are a host of things that are agreed to or substantially agreed to. There are others that aren't. I'm not going to — and the member may not like this — get into the specifics of that in the context of the estimates debate — and for a good reason. Those are issues being discussed at the negotiation table. I don't want to undermine, in any way, the work that is being done at the negotiation table. I think that would be irresponsible of me.

I can tell the member that there is certainly robust negotiation continuing on a number of issues. Day by day the number of issues that we disagree on is narrowing and becoming less. That's why I am very optimistic that we should get to that point of final agreement.

S. Fraser: First nations communities are some of the fastest-growing communities that we have in the province, and youth are a large portion of that. I know we touched on this in the last estimates. Have any of the new staffing and full-time-equivalents been designated towards specifically dealing with some of the realities and the representation of those youth? If so, how many? Are there any hard budget numbers that have been line-itemed towards youth?

Hon. T. Christensen: Within the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations, we have one FTE that is assigned to working with aboriginal youth councils and trying to identify how we better engage them in a range of areas of discussion. Certainly, in our discussions at the First Nations Leadership Council, youth is a recurring theme in terms of recognizing how important work with youth is to the future of first nations in the province, to the future of all of us in the province.

[1530]

There's a keen awareness within the aboriginal community at large of the reality of the demographic. There's a very keen awareness of the need to engage youth in the range of things that first nations communities are doing themselves, and we're certainly very supportive of that.

I can advise the member that in all of the discussion around the $100 million New Relationship fund and the need to build capacity, youth were always at the centre of that. So there's been considerable focus there, and certainly, I would accept the suggestion from the member and agree that we can always be looking for greater opportunities to effectively engage youth, particularly in the aboriginal community, where we recognize the incredible leadership potential that is coming there as those leaders emerge within those communities.

The member may know, and I'm not in a position to provide the detail, that there's a number of other sort of specific initiatives across government where other ministries have programs that are directed specifically towards aboriginal youth — whether that's within the Ministry of Advanced Education or certain programs within Education. Community Services is responsible for the BladeRunners program. All of those have a direct connection to aboriginal youth.

S. Fraser: The minister had stated…. I got a quote from you. Sorry about that. "Treaties and other agreements will stimulate investment, create jobs and expand economies in communities throughout B.C."

One of the issues that certainly has come across my desk a number of times and in conversations with first nations leaders and those involved in treaty is the negotiating and continuing to negotiate into further debt throughout the negotiating process. It's a difficult position to negotiate from. We're hoping there'll be a stimulation of the economy through these negotiations, should they be successful and come to completion.

Has there been any consideration to look at that — the accumulation of debts from nations that are actually involved in treaty? Indeed, it's kept some first nations from being involved in treaty negotiations, simply because of the reluctance to incur those debts.

Hon. T. Christensen: It's my understanding that the original arrangements for how treaty negotiations would be funded were worked out through the B.C. Treaty Commission process, obviously, with the involvement of the federal and provincial governments, but the involvement of first nations as well. I think it's a difficult issue in terms of how you fund negotiations in a way that there's an incentive to ensure that it's not just paying for negotiations but that the negotiations actually get to a result.

[1535]

Certainly, a number of first nations have raised the issue of treaty negotiation debt. I'm not trying to pass the buck here. It's actually primarily a federal issue. It's federal loans that allow for that debt to accumulate, or it's federal loans to the first nations involved in the treaty process that are paying their negotiations cost. There is a small portion that the province pays, but ours isn't a loan. Ours is a grant, in fact.

S. Fraser: Is 100 percent of that a grant from the province? Is there no debt repayment required from the province?

Hon. T. Christensen: The province doesn't provide any loans. It's all grant.

S. Fraser: Is there a role to play for the ministry post–new relationship to be an advocate, if that's the right term, to possibly bring more first nations to the treaty table — so to be an advocate to the federal government for the first nations involved and to attempt to bring more negotiations to the table?

[ Page 3545 ]

Hon. T. Christensen: Our whole focus within the treaty process at this point is to get to final agreements. I think the best way we can avoid first nations incurring too much debt in the treaty negotiation process is to show that the process can be successful and give everybody confidence that engaging in treaty negotiations actually brings results. I think that, more than anything, is what might be discouraging some first nations at this point. They look to their colleagues from other first nations and say: "You've been involved for ten years, or 13 years in some cases; where's the end result?" As I've said earlier, we're very encouraged that we should be getting close to final agreements.

Any broad discussion or any, I guess, meaningful discussion around the issue of the treaty process and the costs of that to first nations or to governments, for that matter, really is a discussion that would occur and be facilitated by the B.C. Treaty Commission. That's how these arrangements were first developed when the treaty process was born, and I think that's the proper venue to have that discussion. Quite frankly, I don't think that we've given sufficient consideration to the pros and cons of a variety of positions in terms of that matter.

Certainly, I recognize the debt concern. A large portion of the debt that first nations have incurred is, obviously, to hire outside expertise to allow them to participate in the treaty process in an effective way. That's one of the reasons that we've recognized the need to build capacity within first nations. That takes time.

I think the costs of negotiating treaty can be brought down over time by building the capacity within communities, and that's what the $100 million New Relationship trust will help to do so that some of the skills necessary to effectively engage in treaty negotiations are actually found, to a greater extent than they are now, in communities from those first nations community members.

S. Fraser: Thank you for the answer.

Is the minister saying that he's anticipating a significant portion of the $100 million will be utilized for capacity-building to deal with treaty?

Hon. T. Christensen: I thank the member very much for the question because, no, that's not what I'm saying.

What I'm recognizing is that the skill sets necessary to effectively engage in discussion with government — whether that's around land and resource policy or decisions, whether that's around social policy decisions, whether that's around how services are best delivered within first nations communities or whether that's in the context of a treaty negotiation and the great long list of issues that are alive in that negotiation…. All of those skill sets are necessary within first nations.

[1540]

What we are hearing from first nations is that to get that expertise, they're needing to hire outside advisers. So the primary purpose of the New Relationship fund over time is to build capacity within those communities so that those skill sets and that expertise can be provided from within rather than having to be hired, at considerably greater cost in many cases, from outside the community.

The capacity-building provides greater capacity within the community to engage in a range of discussions with government, a range of service delivery with government or sometimes without government. Some of that may include assisting in the capacity necessary for treaty negotiations to move ahead. I'm under no illusions that this capacity-building is going to occur overnight. It is a long-term exercise.

S. Fraser: Sticking with the topic of treaty, one of the concerns that I've heard raised more than once is…. I mean, there are issues around the federal debt portion, certainly, but from the provincial side, there are criticisms that the negotiations are slow and the negotiators' mandates very narrow. Sometimes it has been described as too narrow to be considered true negotiations. Despite the fact that we are seeing some agreements-in-principle signed, not all is happy in this process.

Have there been any changes in resources going to the provincial negotiators, any broadening of mandates — anything post–new relationship?

Hon. T. Christensen: I'm sure the member can appreciate that one of the realities of a tripartite negotiation, which is always a little more difficult than just having two parties, is that at any point in time, any one of the three parties can point to the things they think the other two parties need to change in order to get to agreement. That's the reality of a negotiation.

It is fair to say we are continuously reviewing issues as they arise to see where we can find agreement. That is the art of a negotiation. I think the fact that we've reached six agreements-in-principle since 2003 shows that we can have success.

As I've said, that final agreement still remains a bit elusive, but I'm optimistic that as we listen respectfully at the negotiation tables, and provided that all parties at the negotiation table…. I don't say that to lay blame at all, but I think it's critical to recognize that everybody at the negotiation table has to try and understand where the other parties are coming from and find out where we can find the common agreement that benefits all of us. All parties at the treaty negotiation recognize that getting final agreements is to the benefit of first nations and the rest of us.

It's critical that we remain focused on breaking through any of the issues that we're finding are real roadblocks, and that's certainly what we're trying to do.

[1545]

S. Fraser: I understand what the minister's saying, but there are other ways to look at this. There are other perspectives that I've certainly heard from first nations, who may be less than reluctant to bring forward for fear of interfering with the negotiations. I will play their role for them in this case — a devil's advocate, if you will.

[ Page 3546 ]

An expedient treaty process is not necessarily a benefit to all. The process itself, by dragging out — in some instances or from some perspectives — is a costly thing for first nations. It's much more difficult for the first nations at the table to be engaged in, as we talked about, with the debt incurred and such, and can whittle away any potential future settlement. An agreement-in-principle is not…. I do not agree with the minister. It's not necessarily an endorsement that the process is working.

We've got one treaty in B.C. — the Nisga'a. It's been a very slow and expensive process, and the most cost to this process, I suggest, lies with first nations because their needs are greater. When an agreement-in-principle is signed, I guess that's a good-news story. But sometimes it's being equated with having a gun to the head. As the needs in these communities rise, the political realities of the leaders — the chief councillors and hereditary chiefs and the councillors themselves…. There's a lot of pressure to deal with some of the dire needs within the communities. If it's on reserve, so be it.

A negotiation that is drawn out may actually, in some instances, be perceived as a tactic to allow for more pressure to be put on the first nations at the treaty table, because they will not be able to afford it in the end, and to not come to some agreement is going to end up costing too much.

With that in mind, long-winded though it may have been, I'd like to ask the question again. If the provincial negotiators' mandate is the slow point and is the bottleneck here, which it has been interpreted by some first nations, have there been any resources put in place since the new relationship agreement to help facilitate more timely negotiation — either in FTEs or in funding or in changing or relooking at the mandate of those negotiators?

Hon. T. Christensen: I appreciate the member raising the issues in terms of the time it's taking to get treaties. I know it's fair to say that nobody is happy about that situation. Certainly, first nations are frustrated. My experience has been that the province is frustrated and that citizens in general are frustrated about why this is this taking so long. We started down the treaty negotiations through the B.C. Treaty Commission process in the early 1990s with a great deal of optimism and fanfare. Here we are, and we don't have a final agreement yet.

I hesitate to remind the member and anybody else that may be watching this or reading Hansard that the Nisga'a negotiations started in the mid-1970s. It took a long time. To be fair, there the province wasn't engaged at the beginning. It took a long time before the province was at the table, which was necessary for them to actually move ahead.

[1550]

The reality is that these are extremely complex discussions, and it takes time. We have made adjustments to try and move things along. We've introduced the ability to revenue-share at the treaty tables, as something new that provides an additional benefit to first nations and something that first nations have said is important. We've provided for what are called treaty-related measures, which are essentially ways of trying to find creative solutions to some of the problems that perplex us.

I would disagree with the member that the AIPs don't…. I'm not sure; maybe the member wasn't suggesting this. I took it that he was, perhaps, downplaying the importance of agreements-in-principle. I think the agreements-in-principle are fundamentally important, because they are a stage that fully engages the first nations community in reviewing exactly what the general pieces are of what a final treaty might be. And it gets endorsement from that first nation and builds some momentum to get towards final agreement.

Now, I would agree that when you have an AIP and then a couple of years later you're still wondering where the final agreement is, some of that momentum is starting to be lost, and I'm certainly concerned about that. To me, all that means is that we need to be continuously looking at what the critical issues are. And can we find a way, through a respectful discussion at the negotiation table, to get through them? Can we figure out where each party is prepared to be more flexible than they perhaps have been in the past, to get to that final agreement?

I want to be clear that my experience has been that the first nations at the final agreement tables…. That's the approach they want to take. They are truly interested in getting to that point of final agreement and showing to the world that this process is worth it and means a better future for their community and for the rest of the province.

The other thing the member said — and I recognize he's playing the devil's advocate here a bit — is that there is some suggestion by some quarters that dragging out the treaty process is to the government's benefit and to the first nations detriment. I would argue strenuously that dragging out the treaty process and not getting to the point of the final agreement is to the detriment of first nations, certainly, but it is also to the detriment of the province and the federal government.

One of the reasons that we are looking for interim means of working more collaboratively with first nations is because the treaty process is taking so long. There's a recognition by government that in the absence of treaties, we are compelled morally and legally to find a way that will work effectively with first nations so that we're taking into account aboriginal rights and title in the decisions we're making.

If we had a comprehensive set of final treaties across the province, that would be much easier. The certainty that benefits both first nations and the rest of the citizens of the province needs to come into play, and we don't have that certainty. That lack of certainty has a significant economic and social impact on the province, because we don't have those final agreements yet. So I would argue very strenuously that final agreements are very much a goal of the province, as they are a goal for the first nations involved in the treaty process.

[ Page 3547 ]

S. Fraser: I won't argue with that statement, but as the minister has pointed out, the speed of this treaty process for all…. It was put in place for all the right reasons. I'm not criticizing that. But time has marched on, and we've only seen one agreement.

The minister's right. I mean, we're talking decades here and an awful lot of money, resources and time, while a lot of first nations communities have suffered and while our general economy has also felt an effect. The uncertainty is faced by all. That is what the new relationship is to address, in my understanding. That's one of the reasons that we, on this side, have supported that initiative.

[1555]

That being said, I don't believe that in the New Relationship document itself, there's even.… I don't think the word "treaty" appeared, if I'm not mistaken. It was simply absent in that document.

As the minister has pointed out, rather than resources being put in…. Because I didn't get a specific answer — and I've tried this a couple of times — I'm assuming there have been no new resources put in post–New Relationship to expedite the treaty process, either in full-time-equivalents or in specific budget items or in broadening of the provincial mandate for the negotiators to make a more progressive treaty process that seems to emanate from the provincial point of view.

These parallel or revenue-sharing measures are perceived by some as a more expedient way than treaty. That could be considered a self-fulfilling prophecy. I don't want to put words in the minister's mouth, but I didn't get an answer as far as: what are we seeing — with the acknowledgment the minister has stated, that this is a hugely lengthy process and costly to all? Has the ministry not put any new resources into expediting it at the treaty table post–New Relationship — which does not, as far as I know, mention treaty?

There's a disconnect here somewhere.

Hon. T. Christensen: I want to clarify that in the context of the treaty negotiations, revenue-sharing as part of the treaty is what is new. That's something that first nations had asked for. That's something that the province had shifted in being prepared to provide.

The member's right. There are other things that we're doing on an incremental basis outside of treaty that are sharing some revenues with first nations. But what is critical to recognize is that there have been adjustments within the negotiations to try to be responsive to issues that first nations have put on the table. Revenue-sharing is just one example of that.

I do want to confirm for the member…. I thought I had mentioned this when we were talking about the additional FTEs in the ministry earlier. The additional 21 FTEs budgeted within the ministry are there as a result of a need for additional focus on behalf of the province at the final agreement tables and at some of the agreement-in-principle negotiations that are ongoing.

There's reason for optimism. Some of the negotiations are going better than they were in terms of getting towards agreements-in-principle. Where we have agreements-in-principle, there are lots of reasons for optimism in terms of getting to final agreement. That has required additional focus by the ministry in terms of our resources on those negotiations, and that's part of the reason that we have those additional 21 FTEs budgeted: so that we can ensure we're getting that work done.

[1600]

S. Fraser: Thank you for the answer.

The revenue-sharing within treaty. What, specifically, are you referring to?

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

Hon. T. Christensen: What has changed in the treaty context around resource-revenue-sharing is that it has always been the case that if the treaty settlement lands…. If we've come to agreement in terms of the definition of the treaty settlement lands, those are lands that the first nation has complete control over. If revenues were generated from those treaty settlement lands, the case has always been that those would be revenues that the first nation would enjoy.

But at the insistence of first nations at the negotiation table to having a share of provincial revenues that may arise from lands outside the treaty settlement lands, the province responded to that insistence and was prepared, and is prepared, to negotiate a share of what are typically natural resource revenues from lands that may be outside of the treaty settlement lands themselves.

So they are lands that aren't under exclusive control of the particular first nation, but there still may be stumpage revenues, for example, or other resource extraction revenues that come to the Crown on those outside TSL lands or non-TSL lands. The province has been and is prepared to negotiate revenue-sharing on some of those revenues, and that's been in direct response to first nations at the treaty tables.

S. Fraser: Thank you for that. I know that first nations at the treaty table have been pushing for that. Isn't that a result of court decisions as opposed to treaty?

Hon. T. Christensen: No. That's a direct result of ideas at the negotiation table.

S. Fraser: It's kind of a circuitous path, but I mentioned courts. Last I looked, we had 44 cases. Am I accurate there, give or take?

Hon. T. Christensen: I don't know the exact number. That's certainly in the neighbourhood. The member may…. Well, the Attorney General would be the better department to answer that. I'm sure the member can get that from the Attorney General's ministry. The challenge in answering it outright, as well, is that it can change on a daily basis, unfortunately.

[ Page 3548 ]

[1605]

S. Fraser: If the give-or-take number, though…. Generally speaking, is it an improvement since the new relationship was announced early last year?

Hon. T. Christensen: I don't know the answer. Actually, I would hesitate to get into a numbers game around lawsuits that have been filed at any one point in time because there can be a host of factors that come into play. One of the things that has been identified in our new relationship discussion with the First Nations Leadership Council is a need to find…. I guess it's recognizing that, unfortunately, in all likelihood there's always going to be some dispute at some point in the province or some issue that we can't come to agreement on and we're going to need the guidance of the courts.

It would be unrealistic to ever expect we're going to do away with litigation altogether, notwithstanding that many people might like to do that. So the reality is that we need to find ways that we can, perhaps, narrow those issues. We need to find ways so that where we find it necessary to involve the courts in trying to resolve issues, we can do that in as respectful a manner as possible.

The First Nations Leadership Council and first nations around the province have, on occasion, in discussions with me — and discussions with the Attorney General and others — raised concerns about how government has traditionally responded to a suit filed by a first nation. The typical government response, historically, has been what is a typical defence response, whether the plaintiff is a first nation or anybody else, and that is to deny, then to deny again and then to deny 12 other ways.

Having been trained as a lawyer, that's what you're trained to do. It's a simple way of sort of getting the lawsuit started, and then you try and work through the issues a little bit later. In the context of aboriginal litigation, that has often meant that the Crown was, in fact, denying that the first nation even existed. First nations, rightfully so, have expressed that that's offensive. I think any one of us would find it offensive to deny our very existence as a people.

We've tried to be responsive to that and listen to the concern and embark upon a discussion through the leadership council of: "Okay, how can we…?" Recognizing that litigation is going to happen in some cases, how do we do that in as respectful a manner as possible? And can we find a way to try and narrow the issues so that we're being realistic in what we come to agreement on and that the issues that we can't come to agreement on are as few as possible and as narrow as possible so that the court can make the decision as efficiently and correctly as possible to assist us in moving our relationship forward?

Now, that's a tall order. We're just embarking upon that work with the leadership council, but I think it holds great promise — notwithstanding that litigation is inherently an adversarial process — in moving the nature of that relationship away from it being so adversarial and perhaps getting to what really are the nub of some of those issues that, unfortunately, the courts have to be involved in.

[1610]

S. Fraser: I'll venture to say we really haven't seen any improvement. I'd say we've backslid since the new relationship was announced, in incidences of litigation and reliance on the courts. As any key indicator of the success of a relationship, reliance on the courts certainly…. I mean, it's been mentioned in the New Relationship document that they're getting away from the reliance. So that seems to be a weak point so far in this new relationship.

I would suggest that there's been…. I appreciate and I agree with what the minister said as far as the intent of where we should be going with trying to reduce the reliance on litigation as opposed to negotiation. However, the government is still appealing decisions being made in the courts. If they're in favour of the first nations….

The Huu-ay-aht situation near Bamfield — if I'm not mistaken, there was an appeal pursued by the government. The case actually strengthened the first nation's position that they must be consulted on resource use in this particular case.

Am I correct? Did the government appeal that particular court decision?

Hon. T. Christensen: With respect to the Huu-ay-aht, we actually have — it would have been last fall — come to an interim agreement with the Huu-ay-aht First Nation. Unfortunately, what happens — and this is part of the reason that you want to avoid litigation, in terms of having a broad range of issues within litigation — is sometimes a court decision will be made that will address, perhaps, the specific issue at hand, but will also then raise a host of other issues.

As the Crown, you have to look through and say: "Okay, what are the implications of that?" While you may be satisfied that, okay, the court's given you appropriate direction on the primary issue, and you may then be prepared to deal with that…. This is exactly what happened in the context of the Huu-ay-aht decision at the B.C. Supreme Court. We went and we negotiated with the Huu-ay-aht to come to an interim agreement. We were responsive to the court direction in that regard. The court also raised a number of other issues that were of concern. That, unfortunately, often requires: "Okay, we better get some additional clarification from a court of appeal on that."

That's certainly not my preference. It's one of the reasons that I am hopeful that we can move in a direction where we're narrowing the issues in litigation, so that we don't have unintended consequences for both sides, and so that we don't have the difficulties created that the perception of the fact that you're appealing it creates. There are going to be occasions where, unfortunately, we're stuck with having to take that step.

I can advise the member, thankfully, that in the case of the Huu-ay-aht situation, specifically, an appeal

[ Page 3549 ]

was filed by the Crown. The situation has evolved. We have that interim agreement, and as a consequence of a host of factors, I am advised now that, in fact, the Crown has withdrawn that appeal. So there isn't an ongoing case there.

[1615]

S. Fraser: That's good news — the withdrawal of the appeal. Are there cases that the minister is aware of where a first nation is put in a position where they go to court; they use the legal system — as is the right of any British Columbian, any Canadian; and because of that, negotiations cease as a result of a position that the province has taken?

Hon. T. Christensen: Certainly, where we have a negotiation and litigation starts with that same party, we work very hard to try and continue the negotiation, to try and separate the issues that may be at play in the litigation away from the negotiation. Unfortunately, in some limited circumstances, the end result is that the host of circumstances makes the negotiation relatively meaningless.

Again, that's not, by any means, the preferred route for the Crown. If the member's asking whether we have sort of a set policy that once you file a writ, forget it; we're not talking to you anymore…. That's not the case. We do our best to try and ensure that, wherever possible, it is negotiation rather than litigation that is the path we follow.

S. Fraser: I'm glad it's not the norm. I mean, even as it does happen, when it does occur, I understand how unfortunate it is. But it is perceived in some circles as being punitive. If a first nation is going to court to try to find a legal remedy — which, again, is everyone's right — and the punishment is that they will cease to be able to be engaged in negotiations…. I'm not the lawyer here, but the quid pro quo isn't there. I find that offensive in some ways and so do a lot of first nations that have witnessed this happen or had to go through it.

Again, along with that are the expenses that must be incurred by the first nation. I don't have a question on this. I'm glad we're recognizing that this is not the way to go and that we're trying to avoid that for the future.

We referred to revenue-sharing earlier, and you clarified in treaty revenue-sharing…. Outside of treaty revenue-sharing, specifically, what are we referring to there?

[1620]

Hon. T. Christensen: I do, just for a moment, want to respond to the perception or suggestion that refusing to negotiate as a response to litigation might be done as a form of punishment. I can understand why it might be perceived that way. That's certainly not the approach the province takes. As I said, negotiation is the preferred route to resolve issues. What you, unfortunately, find when a lawsuit is filed is that everybody becomes focused on the specific issues in the lawsuit and on whether what they are doing in the discussion outside of the lawsuit is prejudicial to the effective resolution of the lawsuit.

There's no question that litigation complicates any relationship, but I do agree with the member that it is the right of any citizen — and certainly, the right of first nations — to seek the guidance of the courts when needed.

Again, our approach is certainly not…. We don't want to encourage that. We'd much rather try and resolve all issues through negotiation. Certainly, wherever possible, we'll continue to negotiate resolution, rather than litigate it.

In terms of the revenue-sharing outside treaty, at this point, this is being approached primarily on a case-by-case basis in respect of particular projects that may be moving forward where it's clear that there's an impact on aboriginal rights and title interests. The Crown is looking to meet its obligations in terms of where there may be an economic component to the accommodation that we're to provide.

It is, though, very much on a case-by-case situation. It has, as the member likely knows, been identified as one of the significant elements in the new relationship and is referred to specifically in the New Relationship vision document. It is certainly an issue of active discussion with the Leadership Council in terms of how we come up with an effective sort of pan-provincial revenue-sharing regime.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. Of course, mentioned specifically in the New Relationship document were the forest and range agreements. The government side makes a point of lauding those. I do have another take on that. When you're face to face with a first nations leader who's trying to decide whether to sign one of these FRAs or FROs, it's not always spoken of as a true negotiation or a good-faith negotiation. The way I've heard it described in some cases is as a gun to the head. In some cases there are very narrow, if any, negotiations available on these.

It's basically, "Sign it or not," and often in the case where first nations are watching a resource being extracted from their traditional territory.

There's a diminishing return to not signing one, and there are issues around how that's laid out. Does the minister or the ministry have any say on what latitude is given in — "negotiating" is probably the wrong term — whether or not an agreement is arrived at in some cases?

[1625]

Hon. T. Christensen: The member is correct that forest and range agreements were identified early on as one of the issues that the leadership council wanted to work on with the province, and a great deal of work was done through last fall to try and come up with a better template for an agreement that would be more acceptable to first nations. That did result in a new forest and range opportunity template that was intended to try and address the concerns that first nations had

[ Page 3550 ]

raised. Certainly, I'm aware that some additional concerns have since been raised about that template, and we're looking at those concerns and seeing what further adjustment can be made.

One of the challenges, as the new relationship discussion evolves and as we try to deal with issues identified through the new relationship, is that there's sometimes a tendency for us to want everything we do to solve all of the issues right now. What I had hoped we would accomplish in terms of the forest and range opportunities is find an agreement that was acceptable that provided additional opportunities for first nations to be engaged in forestry, recognizing that there were still some bigger issues that we needed to deal with over time and that we would continue to pursue with the First Nations Leadership Council.

Certainly, I think we need to recognize that this is an evolutionary relationship, and our ability to effectively meet the needs of first nations and engage in the discussion over time is evolving. We need to recognize that the original forest and range agreements and now the forest and range opportunity template…. Five years ago those opportunities for first nations weren't there at all in terms of having an opportunity to be engaged in the forest industry.

It's my understanding that we now have over 100 forestry agreements. We have, through those agreements, just under $120 million over five years that is going to first nations. That's a significant improvement on what we had five years ago. Does that mean we sort of say: "Okay. This is done. We don't need to talk about it anymore"? I don't think it means that.

I think that we'll continue to be engaged with first nations in terms of how we ensure they're having meaningful opportunities to be engaged in forestry. How do we ensure they have meaningful opportunities to be engaged in a host of economic opportunities across the province? That's ultimately one of the goals of the new relationship: to ensure that first nations are participating in what we believe to be the huge potential for involvement of first nations in economic development in a host of sectors right across the province.

S. Fraser: I'll beg to differ with the minister on a point. First nations, certainly, were able to get direct awards through, I think, small business, so there were other avenues for this sort of thing to happen before the FRAs and FROs.

But my question would be: are these FRAs, FROs constitutionally protected?

Hon. T. Christensen: No. That's not the intention of these agreements. They're intended to provide an opportunity for first nations to benefit from the forest economy in the province and to, ideally, generate capacity to be involved in forestry in the longer term and have an opportunity to share in that natural resource.

[1630]

S. Fraser: I appreciate the answer. This is outside of treaty, so this is happening as a parallel process. I mean, the forest and range agreements are signed, or the FROs are signed. They're not a long-term solution, and they're not constitutionally protected. Does the minister or the ministry believe that these are an acceptable alternative to treaty — to dealing with the resource issues that way?

Hon. T. Christensen: The forest and range agreements, the forest and range opportunities, are an opportunity to further involve first nations in the forest economy in this specific case. They're in no way a substitute for the treaty process.

I'm certainly hopeful that in building a relationship with a first nation, whether that's through a forestry opportunity or some other economic opportunity that a first nation is able to participate in and become engaged with the province in, we'll start to build some of the underlying relationships necessary to move the treaty process along — try and build some of the foundation for the tougher negotiation that's necessary in a treaty context.

All of the work we're doing, and in the development of a range of what I would call tools that allow us to better work with first nations in the province…. Those are by no means at any point intended as a substitute for the treaty process. They're intended, in some cases, to be complementary to the treaty process. They're certainly not intended to take away from the treaty process.

But it's a recognition that we can't simply rely on the negotiation of treaties to define our relationship with first nations. They're an integral part. I would argue that the ultimate expression of a relationship between a first nation and the province and the federal government can be found in a treaty. But there was equally a need to find means to develop a working relationship with first nations that is short of, and is perhaps part of, the road to getting to that goal of a treaty eventually.

S. Fraser: The reason I'm raising this issue as I have is…. The New Relationship , for instance, as I've mentioned already, I don't even think mentions treaty, but it does mention forest and range agreements. The forest and range agreements are simply not constitutionally protected, so they certainly…. There seems to be a priority there. Also, the Transformative Change Accord. I'm not entirely sure that these non-protected — constitutionally protected — agreements are consistent with that accord, the way it's laid out.

I see a discrepancy there. I'm just wondering if the minister could explain how that could be reconciled.

[1635]

Hon. T. Christensen: I apologize for the delay there. I'm not sure what the member is perhaps getting at. Certainly, The New Relationship , and the work being done pursuant to the original vision document, isn't intended to be a replacement for the treaty process. As I've said on many occasions, I think it's complementary to it. Ultimately, there's no question that treaties have

[ Page 3551 ]

constitutional protection. For those first nations that are interested in pursuing treaties, we're very interested in doing that as well. But we recognize that there are first nations who — for a host of reasons that the member is better to ask them — may not be interested in pursuing treaties, at least through the B.C. Treaty Commission process.

Plus, there are first nations that, while they may be interested in pursuing a treaty, are anxious to better engage with government in the interim on a host of fronts. We feel there's a need to develop the tools to do that, and that's what the new relationship discussion with the leadership council is ultimately about.

The member has put some value on the inclusion of forest and range agreements in the wording of

the New Relationship vision document. Those were included as an action item there, because they were specifically identified by the first nations leadership as a specific issue that needed some work. They already existed, so you had a nice item that you could specify: "Let's sit down and focus on this."

It wasn't intended to give them any greater value than other types of agreements. They were just identified as an opportunity for something that we could perhaps find some early success on.

I do want to emphasize very much that the discussions around the new relationship aren't intended to be a substitution for the treaty process. They're simply a recognition that on the road to treaty, we need to have a new relationship as well. We need to have a better relationship with those first nations and the tools to have a better relationship with first nations that haven't chosen to participate in the Treaty Commission process.

S. Fraser: Thanks for the answer. I apologize if I maybe was not clear on my linking. The treaty process to date has been…. We can all agree. It's been a very slow process. I'm not casting blame here. But I have suggested that part of that is the bottlenecks that have been in place and rigidity in a lot of cases at the treaty table, at least from the perspective of first nations at the table. They don't see a lot of movement there. Formulas have already been put in place, for instance, on how much will be allotted. So the negotiators themselves, even though they're not coming out and saying there's a formula…. Everyone sort of knows there is, as far as per head what we're getting.

In the forest and range agreements — post–new relationship — we're seeing similar formulas being suggested. So I don't see that as a part of any new relationship. It's exacerbating the old relationship. That's part of what the Huu-ay-aht case indicated. This formula, based on a head count, is simply not on, and that's one of the reasons I have a problem with this government appealing that.

[1640]

I understand the minister's explanation, but the perception is that it's getting around a critical piece of the forest and range agreements. Now, that formula, if I'm not mistaken…. Is it $500 per head? I don't know it that well. It's still in place post–new relationship, post–Huu-ay-aht case. I just don't see…. The forest and range agreements are not protected constitutionally, and they're based on a formula that's a head count formula, which the court has already said may not be inconsistent with negotiating in good faith and certainly wouldn't be a replacement for a treaty. But it's a piece of the treaty process that I think is flawed. Certainly, most first nations do.

That's the context of the question. Are these agreements that are being signed with first nations by the Ministry of Forests and Range consistent with the spirit and intent of the Transformative Change Accord and the new relationship, based on decisions made in the court, for instance, and based on that head count? Is that something the minister or the ministry is comfortable with?

Hon. T. Christensen: I'd point out to the member that we do have agreements-in-principle at six treaty tables, so we are moving forward. Those agreements aren't all the same. They're reflective of the negotiations at each of those tables.

We do go to the table and try to have a discussion about what the interests of the first nation are. What do they want to see at the end of a treaty negotiation, and how do we try to get there? Over time, in some cases a long period of time, the positions start to align, and then you get to an AIP. Then you find, "Okay, we've got to align the positions a little bit more," and hopefully, you get to that final agreement.

I think that there is an active negotiation process to get to final agreements. That doesn't mean that any party is going to get everything that they had hoped might be the result of a treaty when they first started the process. In some cases, views change over time in terms of what's the right mix as a variety of circumstances evolve.

[1645]

In terms of the forest and range agreements that the member mentions, we need to recognize these are relatively short-term agreements, in most cases — for a five-year period, is my understanding. They provide an opportunity for first nations to be engaged in forestry, to share in some of the economic opportunity that forestry provides. Certainly, they're not…. I think it's fair to say that nobody would argue that they're perfect agreements — at least I haven't found anybody that would — but they are something that provides a good opportunity for first nations to be involved in forestry.

There are a host of discussions around the broader issue of revenue-sharing that are live issues, that are topics of discussion with the First Nations Leadership Council. That is work that is actively ongoing with the leadership council. They're certainly very good at raising the issues and making sure that we're aware of concerns around different approaches to revenue-sharing, and equally, we try to explain the limitations that the province might face as well. Hopefully, through those discussions, we'll be able to come to some agreement on a revenue-sharing model that does work for first nations and for the province on a provincewide basis.

[ Page 3552 ]

S. Fraser: Was the head count formula negotiated with first nations on the FRAs, or was that sort of mandated as one of the conditions?

Hon. T. Christensen: I can't answer the question, because my ministry wasn't actually involved in that aspect of the agreements. These are agreements that are typically signed by the Ministry of Forests and Range and a particular first nation, and the economic elements of the agreement are negotiated between those parties.

Certainly, the role that Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation has played in working with the leadership council is to try and come up with a template for an agreement that was acceptable, or more acceptable, to first nations. We've gotten partway in doing that. As I indicated to the member earlier, there are still some concerns that some first nations have raised, and we'll continue to work away at seeing if we can find resolutions to those specific concerns.

S. Fraser: All right. The Ministry of Forests and Range is…. I found some of the issues quite confusing, and the minister has indicated that some of these formulas are difficult. The FRAs were specifically laid out in the New Relationship document. So the terms that went with them, I have to assume, since you're the lead ministry on this new relationship, and you have been dealing with the leadership council on this….

The negotiations on the FRAs — how did they come about? How were the terms made? Were they determined just by the Ministry of Forests and Range? Did the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation have a liaison role there? Was there consultation with first nations?

[1650]

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

Hon. T. Christensen: It's important to recognize that the work done around the forest and range agreements, while important, is interim. These are interim agreements while we try to address a host of other issues. I can tell the member that in coming to the wording that's in the current FRO template, that discussion was between the province and the First Nations Leadership Council. There was very active involvement by the members of the First Nations Leadership Council, by staff in my ministry and with staff from the Ministry of Forests at various times. So it was a collaborative effort in trying to come up with a template that would be more acceptable to first nations.

This is just a template. Obviously, the agreement with any specific first nation is going to differ a bit in terms of what fibre is available or what dollars are available. So those are specific discussions between the Ministry of Forests and Range and that particular first nation on a case-by-case basis. That's without the involvement of the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, but we were involved in the development of the template document itself.

As I've said before, I recognize there are still some concerns with that template document. There are some concerns still with the overall arrangements around sharing of forest revenues, but those are…. Particularly, the revenue-sharing element is a discussion that is still a live discussion with the First Nations Leadership Council. Certainly, there wasn't an expectation that the template document would do away with the need to further discuss issues around revenue sharing.

S. Fraser: Okay. If I have this clear, the FRAs…. Post-FRA we've seen negotiations because there were some problems associated with them that have been…. There's been discussion at the leadership council level that has evolved to FROs. So the FRAs themselves…. I'm looking at this head count, this $500 a head.

That formula…. I'll be clear here. I haven't run into any first nations in B.C. that are happy with that position. I will make the assumption, based on the answers from the minister, that the first nations were not involved in negotiating the FRAs to include a $500-per-head count. Am I safe in making that assumption?

Hon. T. Christensen: Again, if one compares the FRO document with what was the FRA document, the member will see there are dramatic…. That's probably the wrong word. There are significant changes. The extent of the document is less in terms of what the Crown is seeking from the document, and it has really become a document intended to provide a forestry opportunity to a first nation without really seeking a great, great deal in return from the province. I think it's an effective document in terms of providing that opportunity to be involved in forestry.

[1655]

In terms of the economic part of it and what the numbers in any single agreement might be, that is not something that can be covered off in the template because it does vary on a case-by-case basis. So the Ministry of Forests and Range has a discussion and a negotiation with the particular first nation that is interested in taking up a forest and range opportunity. Those are case-by-case discussions that don't involve the leadership council, nor do they involve the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation.

What we were involved in was trying to provide a template document that would then be acceptable to more first nations who wish to engage in that discussion with the Ministry of Forests and Range.

S. Fraser: All right. Now, the inception of the FRAs, which were laid out in the New Relationship document…. The basis for the formula was — and I don't know where it came from — 8 percent of the AAC. This gets confusing, and even when the minister has tried to describe it to me, I have a hard time with this. I don't mean this minister — the Minister of Forests and Range. But the 8 percent of the AAC was part of that 20 percent clawback, and the 8 percent was assigned to first nations. From that came a $500-per-head.

[ Page 3553 ]

All of that seems to have happened pre-negotiation with first nations on the FRAs. Was there consultation? To create this whole animal that is an FRA…. That's a very important, fundamental piece of this agreement. Was that negotiated, or was it…? I was going to say ordained. I don't mean it that way. But was it a given? Was it a non-negotiable premise in this agreement?

Hon. T. Christensen: As I've indicated earlier — and I recognize the member may not be getting the response he wants, but it's the only response I'm able to offer — this ministry was involved in the negotiation of the template, the wording in the document, and in trying to find a way, working with the leadership council, that it would be an agreement that was acceptable in terms of its wording for first nations.

The use of that document in any particular circumstance then shifts over to the Ministry of Forests and Range in terms of determining what fibre is available and what the funding is that the Ministry of Forests and Range is prepared to negotiate with that particular first nation. In terms of how that discussion can occur or what the elements of that discussion are, those questions would be better addressed to the Ministry of Forests and Range, as they are responsible for actually negotiating those on a case-by-case basis. This ministry is not involved on that case-by-case basis.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. I shall bring that forward in that set of estimates.

When we move from the FRA to FRO, then, as the minister had indicated, this did come back. This was a cabinet issue, so this minister and ministry would have had some involvement at that point. The first nations leaders that I spoke with that have concerns…. Everyone has had concerns, certainly, with this $500-a-head aspect of it. At one point I was told — and it wasn't all that long ago, but it was…. I mean, there's a court decision that said that that $500 per head was maybe not in keeping with a legal opinion.

[1700]

Then we moved to the FRO negotiations. I heard that there was a settlement at one point and that first nations leadership was happy with that. I'm taking a bit of a stretch here, but presumably because there was a removal of some of the more — I think it was worded — "insidious" portions of the FRA and there was an assumption of agreement….

That FRO agreement situation just sort of disappeared off the map for a period of time. It went to cabinet, I understand. Then when it came back from cabinet, there was inserted back into it some of the…. Again, this is from the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. They had a letter, I know, to the ministry that I was cc'd on, suggesting that…. That was the description that was used. I think "insidious" was the word. The most insidious pieces of the FRA were reinserted back into the FRO.

I'd just like to know what role the ministry played in that negotiation at cabinet level. How did this get back in? It obviously was considered unacceptable through the negotiations that led to the FRO.

Hon. T. Christensen: I think we've got to recognize — well, and we do recognize — that we've come up with a new FRO template. There have been some concerns expressed about it by the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs in particular. We take that feedback seriously. We've had some additional discussion about that. We haven't resolved that yet, but we're certainly aware of the concern, and we're not shutting the door on any particular discussion.

We do need to emphasize, you know, that some pretty big steps have been taken in shifting from the FRA to this FRO template. For the first time, the province has recognized in the agreement that the first nation does have aboriginal rights and title interests within its traditional territory in that agreement.

The agreement has expressed that it's not intended to define those rights, and I would hope that's for relatively obvious reasons, because that's a much more extensive discussion if we're going to get into a whole exercise where we're trying to define the specifics around particular aboriginal rights or the extent of a particular title interest.

[1705]

But there is a recognition by the province that, yes, the first nation does have aboriginal rights and title, and I think that's an important acknowledgement. By no means do I want to suggest otherwise. It's an important recognition of the first nations and a long-overdue recognition of the place that first nations have here in British Columbia and have had all along. Is this agreement something that resolves all issues? By no means. Certainly, I appreciate the input that we've received back from the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs in terms of identifying where some additional concerns are.

There are the broader issues around revenue that are in ongoing discussions with the Leadership Council, and all of us recognize there's considerable work still to do.

S. Fraser: I'm happy that there is recognition of aboriginal — I don't know if title is what you are referring to — resource issues on traditional land. I mean, since Delgamuukw we've had court decisions on that. Recognition is, I think, a fundamental part of any new relationship. I've got the letter from the B.C. Indian Chiefs here, and on the second page,

section (c), it says: "The principle of recognition of aboriginal title is fundamental to the success of the new relationship, and provisions of the FRO, notably 11.5, is to the opposite effect."

Now, if I'm not mistaken, 11.5 is one of those "insidious portions" that was reinserted back into these FROs after it went to cabinet. Is that issue being addressed in what I understand are ongoing negotiations? I think that would be in keeping with that court decision that we were referring to earlier.

Hon. T. Christensen: I find the line of questioning around this particular issue somewhat curious. This is the first government that has ever recognized that a

[ Page 3554 ]

first nation has aboriginal rights and title in the province. It's the first time that it has happened. What we have done, in the context of the FRO template, is for the first time put expressly — in an agreement that we're entering into with a first nation — that we acknowledge that their aboriginal interests continue to exist within their traditional territory as defined by them. What we have also said, though, is that that short forest and range opportunity agreement or template agreement is not intended to fully define the scope of what those rights might be. As the treaty process is a testament to, that is a very complex and long discussion in many cases.

I think one of our challenges in trying to reconcile the coexistence of first nations and recognize the rights and title interests of first nations in British Columbia coexisting with the four million people who reside in the province now and have moved here over the course of the last 150 years, is that if we focus all of our attention on trying to come to full terms and agreement on the specifics of rights and title, we're going