2010 Legislative Session: Second Session, 39th 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)

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 18, Number 7

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Tributes

Robert Rogers

Hon. G. Campbell

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Glacier-Howser independent power project for Kootenays

M. Mungall

Lions Gate Bridge

J. Thornthwaite

Marlborough Elementary School

K. Corrigan

Coast Mental Health and Courage to Come Back Awards

H. Bloy

Heritage sites in North Delta area

G. Gentner

Multiple sclerosis awareness

G. Hogg

Oral Questions

Harmonized sales tax and initiative petition

C. James

Hon. G. Campbell

B. Ralston

M. Farnworth

Impact of harmonized sales tax on liquor prices

L. Krog

Hon. C. Hansen

S. Chandra Herbert

Overpayments to income assistance recipients

S. Simpson

Hon. R. Coleman

N. Simons

Seabus services on Burrard Inlet

H. Bains

Hon. S. Bond

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 21 — Forestry Service Providers Protection Act (continued)

N. Macdonald

Hon. P. Bell

B. Routley

Reporting of Bills

Bill 21 — Forestry Service Providers Protection Act

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 21 — Forestry Service Providers Protection Act

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 18 — Haida Gwaii Reconciliation Act

B. Simpson

Hon. G. Abbott

G. Coons

D. Donaldson

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 18 — Haida Gwaii Reconciliation Act

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 19 — Finance Statutes Amendment Act (N o . 2), 2010

Hon. C. Hansen

B. Ralston

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Health Services (continued)

A. Dix

Hon. K. Falcon

R. Fleming

N. Macdonald

S. Fraser

C. Trevena

B. Routley

[ Page 5705 ]

TUESDAY, MAY 25, 2010

The House met at 1:36 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Tributes

ROBERT ROGERS

Hon. G. Campbell: I rise today to recognize the contributions made by former Lieutenant-Governor Col. Robert G. Rogers, who passed away on Friday, May 21. He served as Lieutenant-Governor from 1983 to 1988 and is remembered for opening the doors of Government House, welcoming visitors from across British Columbia and from around the world.

He bravely served his country in World War II and participated in the D-Day invasion. He was a leader of the forest industry, the chairman and CEO of Crown Zellerbach Canada Ltd. He was an officer of the Order of Canada and a knight of the Order of St. John.

He'll be remembered for his kindness and generosity. He will be remembered for his unwavering dedication to public service and public life in the province of British Columbia and in our country, Canada. I ask the House to recognize his tremendous contributions.

Introductions by Members

K. Corrigan: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce somebody who is in the gallery with us today. It is my niece Morag Keegan-Henry. She's a brilliant student from UVic who is not studying right now but was here for the day to shadow me, and I think she has had a real education. I hope the House will make her feel very welcome.

Hon. K. Falcon: Today we've got several special guests from the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada. May, as many members will know, is MS Awareness Month. That's why we are all wearing the red carnation: to recognize those that struggle with the challenge of multiple sclerosis.

I do want to recognize the three that are joining us here today. First is Todd Abercrombie, the executive director of the MS Society of Canada, south Vancouver Island chapter. Todd is joined by Helen Fletcher, the chair of the board for the MS Society of Canada, again the south Vancouver Island chapter. The third guest from the MS Society is Dave Doig, who is director of client services for the MS Society of Canada, B.C. and Yukon division. I would ask the House to please make these folks welcome and recognize the important work they do every day in working with those in the community that are affected by this very debilitating illness.

L. Popham: In the House today is a group of 37 grade 10 students from Claremont Secondary, here with their teacher Aaron Macri. They're here to watch question period and to see how the Legislature functions. Please help me make them feel welcome.

E. Foster: In the House today we have visiting us Alex Skultety. Alex is from Vernon but is attending the University of Victoria now as a political science student. Before moving to Victoria, Alex was an on-air radio personality when she was going to college in Vernon. She now works part-time at the Ocean, the FM station here. I'd like the House to please make Alex welcome.

C. Trevena: In the gallery today is Iliana Turner. She's here with the Equal Voice Experiences program, which encourages young women to get involved with politics. She's shadowing me as I work through the day and meeting with other MLAs as well as yourself, Mr. Speaker. Iliana, who is 14 and in late French immersion at Vic High, is a very engaged young woman who has high ambitions for a very big future in federal politics. I hope people will make her very welcome.

Also in the gallery, I have to note, is my assistant Teresa Scambler, who helps me through my chaos and works with two other MLAs on the opposition side. I hope that the House can also make her very welcome because without her, we couldn't operate.

[1340]

Hon. B. Stewart: I am honoured here today to introduce some members in the gallery that have come here, a special delegation of visitors from the Portuguese Parliament visiting British Columbia for the first time. They're here because of the ancestral roots of Portuguese that have helped establish new immigrants to British Columbia and to make certain they connect with the over five million Portuguese people that are around the world. There are quite a few, obviously, in British Columbia and many of the communities that helped establish British Columbia today.

The hon. António Fernandes da Silva Braga, the Secretary of State for Portuguese Communities Abroad; as well, accompanying him are Mr. Pedro Soares de Oliveira, chief of cabinet for the Secretary of State; Dr. Pedro Moitinho de Almeida, Ambassador of Portugal to Canada; and Mr. Carlos de Sousa Amaro, the Consul General of the Portuguese Republic in Vancouver.

I'd ask the House to please join me in giving a warm welcome to this delegation from Portugal.

Hon. M. Polak: We're joined in the gallery today by a young woman named Jusdene Badh. She's a grade 11

[ Page 5706 ]

student from A.R. MacNeill in Richmond. She plays gold soccer, volunteers at Rotary and collects door to door for the Canadian Cancer Society. Would the House please make her very welcome.

R. Cantelon: Joining us are Doug and Carolyn Brommage. Doug is president of InSight Development, an award-winning developer of residential and commercial properties, mainly for their innovative approach to residential housing.

I'd mostly like to recognize Doug for taking the lead in the development industry and putting something back in the community. They put their money where their mouth is and took a development that was planned to be six units of social housing to 20 units of social housing. That's real commitment to community. We thank them for that, and I ask the House to join in thanking him for his accomplishments.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

GLACIER-HOWSER INDEPENDENT

power project for kootenays

M. Mungall: Well, during the first week of June the West Kootenay EcoSociety, the Council of Canadians, Wildsight, the Western Canada Wilderness Committee and the B.C. Citizens for Public Power are all coming together in three different Kootenay communities to talk about what I consider to be the most beautiful place in the world. Nelson's meeting takes place June 1 and, by virtue of technology, I will be there saying these next few words.

So where is this incredible place? Well, it's way out there in the back country. You'll know when you find it. The vista is sensational, and the water of Glacier Creek is cool, crisp and shimmers in the sun. You can see bear catching fish. You can hear all the birds chirping their joyous songs and view the ancient trees, and you will lose your breath to know that you are so lucky to just be there.

Now, just think of this most beautiful place in the whole world gone — gone in the name of money, for some big corporation on the other side of the country. People in the Kootenays refuse to fathom the loss of this most beautiful place. When AXOR corporation put forward its proposal for a 100-megawatt private power project on Glacier and Howser Creeks, Kootenay people said: "No thanks."

With over a thousand written submissions to the environmental assessment office, mass rallies at the Kootenay meetings…. In fact, there were more people at the rally in Kaslo than actually live in Kaslo and over 500 people at a meeting I held in Nelson when the EAO rejected the broad public's request.

The public participation is tremendous. It is positive, and it is amazing, rivalled only by the beauty that, of course, inspired it. So you can pretty much guarantee that the Kootenay people will continue to stand up for their waterways and, of course, this most beautiful place on earth.

lions gate bridge

J. Thornthwaite: On Sunday I was honoured to represent the province at the official plaque unveiling to recognize the Lions Gate Bridge as a national historic site. For more than 70 years the iconic Lions Gate Bridge has connected the city of Vancouver and the North Shore.

[1345]

I cannot begin to count the number of times I have excitedly travelled across this bridge, back and forth in my commutes to UBC, visiting many of the Vancouver attractions, particularly during the Olympics, as well as walking, riding a bike and even bussing over that bridge.

Its designers accomplished a rare feat, combining strength and grace with a purpose to create a structure that has become a symbol of Vancouver. The value of the Lions Gate Bridge to the Lower Mainland could not be overstated. Over 60,000 vehicles a day travel over its deck, and even on May 5 a grey whale was underneath it. I fly on a regular basis, and with the helicopters or the sea planes over above, and I never tire of how beautiful it is.

Many others sail under it, as well, on cruise ships bound for Alaska, freighters bound for far-off ports.

The province of British Columbia works hard to ensure the bridge is maintained. Ten years ago the province undertook the enormous task of replacing the bridge deck. This past summer the ministry replaced the architectural lighting, which has graced the bridge's suspension cable since 1986, with new energy-efficient LEDs, ensuring the bridge maintains a sparkling sight on a west coast night.

I must say that my favourite improvements have been the Vancouver spirit shown by the Lions themselves that, I can only assume, took it upon themselves to sport Canucks jerseys for a very short time and the all-famous red mittens during the Olympics.

It was an honour to be at Ambleside Park to see the plaque officially unveiled, recognizing the Lions Gate Bridge as a national historic site, ensuring our Vancouver monument will be there for the future.

MARLBOROUGH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

[ Page 5707 ]

Parents also play a very important role at Marlborough, contributing significantly to the school and its programs. For example, thanks to the parent advisory group and the school district, the new west field is available for the school and the community. Mr. Speaker, 45 trees and 1,250 daffodils were planted, and there's a new irrigation system and an all-weather walking and running area. That example set by parents and staff imbues the school culture as a caring school.

What the students see and experience they become, so perhaps it's not surprising that an active intermediate fundraising group of about 30 students called the Husky Paw Prints have raised $2,500 for Haiti relief, in addition to ongoing fundraising for Free the Children and other causes.

A couple of weeks ago the member for Burnaby-Edmonds and I were lucky enough to join the school in celebrating two special groups. One was the Olympic choir, 150 members directed by the irrepressible Geraldine Lazaruk and Kirsten Stark. It was an absolutely magical day when the choir sang at the Olympic Torch Relay event at Burnaby Village Museum.

In addition, we honoured the phenomenal achievements of the track team, which had won many of the individual but particularly the relay events at the district track meet — again, a combination of commitment from teacher-coaches, volunteers, parents and others and, of course, the commitment and hard work of the students themselves. As a lovely extra we were treated to a fabulous student ballroom dance performance. These are only a few of the great achievements happening at Marlborough School.

COAST MENTAL HEALTH AND

COURAGE TO COME BACK AWARDS

H. Bloy: This year one in five British Columbians will experience some sort of mental health disorder. Whether the illness is mild or severe, it is disruptive and tiring for the individual who experiences it as well as their loved ones. Coast Mental Health, led by the executive director, Darrell Burnham, was created to address the need for people recovering from serious mental illness. They are there to ease the transition to recovery.

Coast cooperates with communities to ensure that a person who has endured mental illness will be welcomed into an understanding and nurturing environment. They provide both direct service as well as advocacy. On May 6 Coast Mental Health raised $728,000 at the Courage to Come Back Awards. This was including sponsorship by our government and Scotiabank.

[1350]

The gala dinner attracted over 800 guests to honour six British Columbians, and I would like to extend my congratulations to them: Mark Audio Ash for physical rehabilitation, Starr Peardon for addiction, Myrna Cranmer for social adversity, Theresa Duggan for mental health, Fahreen Mapara for youth, and Cindy Thomsen for medical. These individuals exemplify having the courage to come back. They have shown tremendous personal perseverance to overcome difficult circumstances. Today they are role models to others.

All of this would not happen without the unique leadership of Lorne Segal and his hundreds of volunteers. The money raised at the awards emceed by Peter Legge will provide food, homes and jobs to people across the Lower Mainland who struggle with mental illness. Thank you to everyone at Coast for their hard work and compassion.

HERITAGE SITES IN NORTH DELTA AREA

G. Gentner: This weekend along North Delta's River Road two tributes commemorate the heritage aspects of our community. In Annieville the Trinity Lutheran Church celebrated its 100th-year anniversary, while one kilometre downstream the Sunbury Neighbourhood Association had its annual Victoria Day garden party.

By the panoramic riverfront I stood in a recently excavated crater located between makeshift construction fencing. It occurred to me that I was standing on B.C. protected archaeological sites DgRr-2 and DgRr-6, respectively known as the St. Mungo and Glenrose Cannery sites.

North Delta is home to one of the oldest and most significant archaeological sites in British Columbia, evidence of a settlement that predates the pyramids, Stonehenge or the occupation of Scotland. Habitat occupied the foreshore 250 years before the red and yellow cedar came to the Lower Mainland, and their tools and ornaments were made not of wood but of stone and bone.

They were intensive fishers and fished on water where we today call Richmond and South Delta. When they first occupied this land, the ocean was ten metres below present levels. As glaciers melted upstream, the Fraser in its infancy cut its way with fresh water and silt, creating a delta with new marshlands and bogs that created berries and medicinal herbs.

DgRr-2 and DgRr-6 are recognized heritage sites of extreme importance. It is ironic that underneath the excavation lies 8,500 years of authenticity of B.C.'s very First Peoples' cultural adaptation to a changing land and climate, now ripped apart for a freeway.

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS AWARENESS

G. Hogg: Surrey resident Jordan Sigalet had a hockey stick in his hand by age three. Since then he has won acclaim as a goalie with the Victoria Salsa and with Bowling Green University. He was a seventh-round draft pick of the Boston Bruins, and he's now playing for their development team in Rhode Island. Jordan is an

[ Page 5708 ]

accomplished, remarkable 24-year-old, and since 2004 he has lived with multiple sclerosis.

White Rock resident Debbie Hazlett is a wife, mother and grandmother. She and her husband are avid B.C. Lions and Canucks fans. She loves life, loves people and has a smile and a kind word for everyone. She is a remarkable person who has given so very much to so many. She has organized fundraisers, volunteered and shared the story of her journey with many people living with multiple sclerosis.

Jordan and Debbie are living with this unpredictable disease which affects vision, hearing, memory, balance and mobility. Its effects are physical, emotional and financial, and they last a lifetime. There is no cure. Between 55,000 and 75,000 Canadians, including 8,000 British Columbians, live every day with MS.

The MS Society raises awareness about multiple sclerosis. It engages new and existing supporters in an effort to end this disease. Every day three more Canadians are diagnosed with MS. Women are three times more likely than men to develop MS, and Canadians have one of the highest rates of MS in the world.

May is MS month in Canada, and May 26 is World MS Day. Today we wear carnations as a symbol of hope in the quest to end multiple sclerosis. We do this for Jordan, for Debbie and for each other, and we do this for the well-being of everyone.

Oral Questions

HARMONIZED SALES TAX

AND INITIATIVE PETITION

C. James: Public anger continues to grow over the B.C. Liberal broken promise on the HST. More than half a million voters have signed the citizens' initiative.

[1355]

My question is to the Premier. The public has spoken. They've overwhelmingly rejected the HST and this government's betrayal. So will the Premier take this opportunity today, honour the will of the people and stop the HST before it comes in July 1?

Hon. G. Campbell: I recognize that change is always difficult, particularly change that looks for long-term benefits for the people of British Columbia. But I think the fact of the matter is that there is a difference between this side of the House and that side of the House. This side of the House has consistently taken steps to strengthen our economy, to create jobs and opportunities across the province of British Columbia. That side of the House has done the opposite.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Campbell: This side of the House understands that when you have an improvement in a tax regime that would create $11.5 billion of additional investments, thousands and thousands of additional jobs…. I think it's important for us to take action on behalf of every British Columbian in every region of this province to strengthen our economy.

We said that our economy would be stronger as we came out of this downturn. It is getting stronger. It is encouraging investments. It is creating jobs. That's the way to the future for British Columbia.

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

C. James: It's very clear the Premier and the rest of this government doesn't get it. It's not about change. It's about saying one thing during the election and doing the opposite after the election. This is about being truthful with the public, and the public understands that. That's why half a million have signed the petition.

A straightforward question for the Premier: if the Premier is too stubborn to stop the HST before July 1, will he commit today that if the initiative petition passes, he will finally, finally listen to the public and either call a referendum or bring in and pass legislation to stop the HST?

Hon. G. Campbell: We were very clear a year ago. We would do everything and we will do everything we can to make this economy stronger and come out of the downturn stronger. In fact, the reason that literally dozens and dozens of organizations have called for this change, the removal of the PST — the elimination of the PST and the harmonization — is because it saves small businesses and large literally tens of millions of dollars in administration costs alone.

My question to the Leader of the Opposition: when is the Leader of the Opposition going to go to that forest worker and say: "I don't care about your job"? When is the Leader of the Opposition going to go to the miner and say: "I don't care about your job"? When is the Leader of the Opposition going to go to the small business person and say: "I don't care about your job"?

We do care about their jobs. We do care about the economy, and that's why British Columbia's going to continue to build on our economic strength in the future.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, I want you to take the time to listen to the question and listen to the answer, please.

The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

[ Page 5709 ]

C. James: I'll tell the Premier and the B.C. Liberals what is clear. The B.C. Liberals told the public during the election — in fact, they even put it in writing — that they weren't going to bring in the HST. The B.C. Liberals betrayed the public in British Columbia. That's what's true.

[1400]

Three days after the votes were counted, the B.C. Liberals were in negotiations with Ottawa. They betrayed the public. The public overwhelmingly has rejected the HST, and most importantly, the public has rejected the way it was brought in.

Again, my question is to the Premier. Will he stand up today, do the right thing and get rid of the HST?

Hon. G. Campbell: This government believes the right thing is encouraging investment. This government believes the right thing is encouraging job creation. This government believes the right thing is strengthening the economy. That side has constantly been against that.

This government believes in creating a competitive tax regime that will encourage forestry, mining, energy, small business and economic growth in every single region of this province, and we will continue working on that option throughout.

An Hon. Member: How about telling the truth?

Mr. Speaker: Member, please withdraw that statement.

An Hon. Member: I do.

B. Ralston: My question is to the Premier. If the initiative petition passes, will the Premier commit today to either call a referendum or place the bill before the House?

Hon. G. Campbell: As I've said publicly, if the initiative passes, we will carry out the work as laid out in the legislation. It will be submitted to a legislative committee for their decision and their direction.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: Will the Premier commit to either call a referendum or submit the bill to the Legislature — not to the committee, to the Legislature?

Hon. G. Campbell: I am sure the member is aware of the legislation. If the initiative is successful, it will be submitted to a legislative committee, and they will make the decision on the appropriate next steps.

M. Farnworth: The appropriate thing to do is to recognize and respect the will of the people of British Columbia. With seven weeks to go, more than half a million people have signed a petition; 83 out of 85 ridings have met the 10 percent threshold.

By the fifth of July we could well have more people signing that petition than voted for the government side of the House at the last election. They all have one question and one question they want the Premier to answer. Will he respect their voice and cancel the HST or hold a referendum?

Hon. G. Campbell: I certainly will respect the public voice and will follow the legislative framework that's put in place, which says that if the initiative is complete, it will be submitted to a legislative committee for the appropriate next steps.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: The appropriate steps are either to table a bill in this House which will do what the public wants and end the HST once and for all or to go and hold a referendum because the government doesn't have the guts to do what the people want. That's what the appropriate next steps are.

My question is to the Premier. The question is clear, Premier. Will you table a bill and get rid of the HST and vote to eliminate it, or will you let the people do it for you and let them have their referendum?

[1405]

Mr. Speaker: I just want to remind the member to be careful in his choice of words, please.

Hon. G. Campbell: It would be, I believe, inappropriate for the Premier to tell a select standing committee what to do. There is a piece….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Premier, just take your seat for a second.

Hon. G. Campbell: As I said, we will submit the initiative, should it be successful, to the select standing committee who will take the appropriate steps under the legislation.

Let me say that while the select standing committee is reviewing that, you may rest assured that I will be out in British Columbia, and I will be reminding British Columbians that this is about their jobs in forestry, in mining. This is about investment in British Columbia. This is about a competitive tax regime. This is about thinking about our children and their future. That's what this government stands for.

[ Page 5710 ]

IMPACT OF HARMONIZED SALES TAX

ON LIQUOR PRICES

L. Krog: When the HST takes effect, the government says that businesses will pass the savings on to consumers. The provincial portion of the tax on liquor sales will drop from 10 to 7 percent, but instead of passing on those savings, the B.C. Liquor Distribution Branch is going to keep their prices the same.

Will the minister admit that the government is simply leading the charge on pocketing the savings and stiffing consumers in British Columbia?

Hon. C. Hansen: I can assure British Columbians that the cost of liquor at the liquor stores will not increase on July 1 as a result of the harmonized sales tax. I can also assure British Columbians that if they are enjoying a nice glass of B.C. wine at their local restaurant or a glass of cider or a nice glass of B.C.-brewed beer at their local restaurant, they will, in fact, see less tax, to the tune of about $30 million as a result.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: I'm glad this minister is so confident, given what the restaurant association says, that any British Columbians will be going to restaurants after this tax is brought in. But for those British Columbians who still buy and drink at home, the government has repeatedly stated that once it's introduced…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

L. Krog: …any savings will be passed on to consumers. Yet the government is leading the charge. They're the first to pocket the savings.

Will the minister admit he's wrong — tell the truth and admit there's no guarantee whatsoever to British Columbians that they're going to get any break on this — and stop the HST before it's introduced?

Hon. C. Hansen: I'd actually like to quote from a little handout from one of the local restaurants here in Victoria — a great little restaurant. It says: "First, the current B.C. liquor tax will be eliminated when the HST takes effect, so having a drink here will actually cost less." It goes on to say this: "We're also working hard with our suppliers to identify savings that we can pass on to you through HST specials that will appear on our menu starting in July."

I pay full tribute….

[1410]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just take your seat for a second.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: That's an example of a small business owner who is proactively identifying savings, finding out ways that the HST is going to benefit not only their restaurant or their enterprise but is going to be a benefit to their customers as well.

S. Chandra Herbert: What we know is that the B.C. restaurant and food associations have said that the HST will cost their members up to 10,000 jobs. That's the truth about the HST, to the minister.

Shortly after announcing the HST, the Finance Minister…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member, just take your seat for a second.

Continue, Member.

S. Chandra Herbert: …suggested that a burger might cost more but then said that beer will cost less. We know that burgers are going to cost more because of the HST, but now we know that the minister was not telling the whole facts about the cost of beer.

If you go to a liquor store, the government is marking up the price, yet they claim that people will cost on the savings. Will the minister tell this House if the government actually isn't marking up the price and that somehow we've got it wrong? Or are they just trying to gouge B.C. taxpayers with yet another cost through a different hand in a different pocket?

Hon. C. Hansen: I'll repeat what I said earlier. The cost of purchasing wine or beer or spirits or other products at the B.C. Liquor Stores will stay almost exactly the same as it is now. But I'd also point out to the member that the taxes that we derive…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Hansen: …whether it's the markup or whether it's the sales tax on alcohol products in British Columbia, are a pretty important part of the revenue base that the province counts on for paying for health care and education and the other social services that are so important to British Columbians.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Chandra Herbert: The B.C. Liberals claimed that they weren't going to bring in the HST in the last

[ Page 5711 ]

election. The public believed them. Should they have believed them? No. The B.C. Liberals did bring in the HST. The government claims that, oh, they'll pass on savings to the taxpayer. Should the public believe them? No. The B.C. Liberal government won't even pass on those savings.

Do the people of B.C. want to believe this minister? Yes, they do. But they know that just about everything about the HST coming out of this government's mouth should be taken with more than a grain of salt — maybe more beer, yet they're going to increase the cost of that too.

Will the minister finally stand up, stand up in this House, tell the public why they're wrong, he's right, and why they should even believe a word out of his mouth about the HST?

Hon. C. Hansen: That's interesting coming from a member of the New Democratic Party, who campaigned on a platform to crank up the price of beer in British Columbia to the tune….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: I will reiterate. If the member wants to go out and buy beer at the government liquor store, it's going to be almost the same after July 1 that it is today.

[1415]

The instructions that we gave to the Liquor Distribution Branch are that the shelf price on alcohol should remain the same and should not increase as a result of the harmonized sales tax. I can also tell the member that if he would like to go out to a restaurant in his constituency and order a glass of beer, he will, in fact, be paying less tax after July 1 than he would be today.

OVERPAYMENTS TO

INCOME ASSISTANCE RECIPIENTS

S. Simpson: We've now learned that the government is aggressively going after income assistance recipients for overpayments from six years ago. We know that between January of 2009 and the end of April 2010 there were less than 70 claims filed by the government. In the first few weeks of May alone we've seen over 300 claims filed.

Can the minister tell us how and when these overpayments occurred, and what percentage were government error or overpayment?

Hon. R. Coleman: It's actually 317 in the last month. The fact of the matter is that these are payments that have been made to people, sometimes under situations where they were not providing us with the right information with regards to what they're eligible to do on social assistance.

It's important that we protect our placeholder in order to collect money that was inappropriately gotten by people, whether it be by fraud or misinformation, and we will do that. There will be more that we will have to file over the next year to protect our position, because when six years expire our ability to collect disappears, and we don't want to do that. We want to protect the taxpayers of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: We know that the majority of these people continue to be on assistance. They have little or no money to make these repayments. Income assistance, we know, is already too low. In all likelihood it will cost the government more to prosecute these small claims than they will get back in dollars.

Is it the minister's intention to either cut people off, garnish their cheques — creating even more hardship for income assistance recipients — or do what the government has done for years and years and forgive all of this? If so, why is he creating this anxiety?

Hon. R. Coleman: Surely I didn't just hear the member opposite advocate that we should allow fraud within the welfare system and not pursue those that would actually file false information or commit fraud with regards to the money they receive on social assistance.

The fact of the matter is, hon. Member, that we are pursuing what is the rightful job of government to do with regards to these. We have not served anybody any notice. We've just filed in protection of our ability to move forward. We will negotiate with people.

We are actually very good at finding long-term, very affordable ways for people to pay back money that they've inappropriately received from government through whatever means they were responsible for — if they provided false information, if they provided a false mixture of family makeup, if they did not provide the information with regards to where they actually lived, which turned out to be incorrect with regards to the shelter allowance side.

It is important that we have discipline in the marketplace because…. I would hope the member opposite would expect us to manage the system so that the people that are entitled to social assistance in British Columbia are the ones that we've saved the money for, so we can pay them.

N. Simons: The minister characterizes this as fraud and going after cheats. It's typical poor-bashing, but my question is for the minister specifically. It's not out

[ Page 5712 ]

of pattern. That's well within the pattern we've seen. How many of the errors, how many of the inaccuracies in these reports, were due to government error, as my friend's first question was, and how many were due to misinformation, as the minister calls it?

Hon. R. Coleman: If it's our error, we work that through and work that out with the client as well. You know that very well if you have been around the system for a while. The fact of the matter is that people have received money by virtue of them providing the wrong information to government that was fraudulent or misinformed, or people were actually playing the system.

[1420]

My expectation from the taxpayers would be, I would think, that we would pursue that to collect it back on behalf of taxpayers so the people that deserve social assistance in the province of British Columbia will have the money available and the government would have the money for social assistance, health care and education rather than to someone that's decided to give us false information with regards to the social assistance they've received.

SEABUS SERVICES ON BURRARD INLET

H. Bains: The ridership on the SeaBuses on Burrard Inlet has never been higher, but now the Olympics are over. TransLink is saying that they could only afford to operate two of the three buses because of lack of funds.

In 2008 the B.C. Liberals promised that the SeaBuses would operate every ten minutes. Obviously, that is another broken promise by this government and the latest example of how this government talks a lot about public transit but would not ensure that the services that the public needs are fully accessible.

My question to the minister is this. Will the Minister…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

H. Bains: …of Transportation commit to providing TransLink with the funding it needs so that all three SeaBuses will be in operation?

Hon. S. Bond: I can tell you what this side of the House is going to do. It's going to continue with the largest expansion of transportation and transit in the history of British Columbia.

For the member opposite to stand up and ask us about transit plans…. This is the member of the opposition — and the Leader of the Opposition — who actually suggested that we not move ahead with the Canada Line, that we should go back and think about it and maybe start all over again. We're going to continue with the largest expansion in history, and the members opposite have voted against every single investment.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

H. Bains: This minister and this government talked a lot about Olympic legacies, but let me tell you what the legacy of this government is.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just take your seat.

Members.

Continue, Member.

H. Bains: Everyone out there knows that the legacy that we can attribute to this government is mismanagement, waste, arrogance, secrecy and, by the way, dirty tricks during the election. That's what this government's legacy is.

Let's talk about the issue at hand, so that the minister understands exactly what I'm asking.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member, just take your seat for a second.

Members. Members.

Continue, Member.

H. Bains: It's clear that TransLink is ready to put a third SeaBus into operation. The public has demonstrated the need and desire to use that service. It's only this government standing in the way. By refusing to come to the table, she continues to deny and deflect.

My question again is to the minister. Will the minister stop deflecting, stop denying and take some real action to ensure that all three SeaBuses are in operation at the same time?

Hon. S. Bond: We have a $14 billion plan, and just….

[1425]

Interjections.

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

Continue, Minister.

Hon. S. Bond: We have made unprecedented investments, and the results are clear. The Canada Line numbers are exceptional. We are actually seeing people change

[ Page 5713 ]

their patterns to use public transit. We have the largest expansion in the history of British Columbia. The members opposite voted against every single investment, and they should be embarrassed by their record on transportation.

[End of question period.]

B. Simpson: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

B. Simpson: It's not often I get to introduce a school, especially a rural-remote school that's in the House today. The Nazko Valley School is here today. Each year they have an annual dinner where we get the opportunity to fundraise for them. My wife is still trying to convince me that winning at silent auctions and during the auction is actually not winning, because she writes the cheque. So we've given quite a bit of money to these folks. The community really supports them.

In the House today grade 7s Kady Clement and Taylor Woodward and grade 6s Marlana Alec and Colter Christiansen are joined by their teacher, Linda Kishkan. I ask the House to please welcome them.

Hon. M. de Jong: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Hon. M. de Jong: There is a young up-and-coming broadcaster in the gallery today, a grade 11 student. Jusdene Badh is here with some students from A.R. MacNeill School out of Richmond. She is a soccer star, a sports star and someone who has already found the value associated with contributing to public endeavours like Rotary and cancer causes. I hope the members of the House will make her and her classmates very welcome today.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call, in Committee A, Committee of Supply — the ongoing estimates of the Ministry of Health — and, in this chamber, continued committee stage debate on Bill 21.

[1430]

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 21 — Forestry Service

Providers Protection Act

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 21; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:32 p.m.

Section 24 approved.

section 25.

N. Macdonald: We're again dealing with the compensation fund, and I would foresee this taking about a half an hour to just move through it. Many of the questions will be fairly similar once we go through.

Section 25(1) says: "…by regulation, may establish a fund for compensating forestry service providers…." Just the choice of the word "may" — is there anything significant in that? Surely the intention is that it will happen, but why the choice of "may" rather than "will"?

Hon. P. Bell: The words "may" and "will" are used depending on the nature of a particular piece of legislation. Typically, "will" tends to revolve around penalty charges and things of that nature, and "may" tends to be just an enabling word that allows you to develop the actual fund. That's the reason for the use of the word "may."

The Chair: Member seeks leave to make an introduction.

Introductions by Members

D. Donaldson: I would like to introduce a grade 6-7 split, I think, from John Field Elementary School in Hazelton, in the constituency of Stikine and Gitanmaax as well. This is the school my children attended, and I'm very happy it's the first school class from Hazelton I've been able to introduce.

Debate Continued

N. Macdonald: In terms of the work going forward, the minister outlined, with the lien provisions, the groups that were involved in that. The minister talked about licensee groups as well as some of the contractor groups.

In terms of the discussions that are going to continue on defining fully the compensation fund, are those the same groups that will be included in those discussions? Is the minister considering broadening it to other groups, and if so, what are some of the other groups that the minister would be including?

[ Page 5714 ]

Hon. P. Bell: At this point we contemplate just utilizing the two existing groups that I defined earlier on. If at some point in the future we chose to expand the opportunities for both the lien and the compensation fund to a group beyond this initial group, that would be when we would incorporate those. These are the two primary groups that are impacted by this decision, and those would be the ones most appropriate to consult with at this point.

[1435]

N. Macdonald: I'm not sure it falls under this section, but just to get a sense of the direction the minister is going. Obviously, there have been discussions to date on the makeup of the fund. There are clearly some stumbling blocks or areas that need to be narrowed so that we get agreement, but what is the nature of the fund that the minister is looking at?

There's mention later on about stumpage. There are also possibilities of some sort of an insurance fund. So what sort of a fund is the minister looking for? Can he give us the parameters that the future fund falls within right now?

Hon. P. Bell: At this point, our intent is to develop a compensation fund. The advice that we've received internally within government at this point is that a small- to medium-sized licensee in bankruptcy would leave an exposure of approximately $5 million. A large licensee, the top three or four licensees in the province, could leave an exposure of up to $20 million.

The likely outcome of this work is that that fund would continue to receive money over time to the point where there were sufficient funds held in reserve to no longer require any specific payments into that fund. Then it would be managed as a fund that would accrue interest over time. It would be done at arm's length under a contractual relationship, and it would involve the support of the two primary parties that were discussed earlier in the development of the consultation processes.

I don't want to rule out any other options because I don't think that would be fair. There may be other options that become apparent through the discussion process of the development of this compensation regime. So I just want to be clear that it could be that other options will come forward, and I wouldn't want to rule those out until we've seen what they look like. We're looking for a fund that will provide the level of protection at the most affordable cost possible.

B. Routley: Under

section 25, in (2), there's: "The authority must hold the fund in trust." Then in (4) you talk about the fund "permitted under the provisions of the Trustee Act." Having been a former pension trustee and on the audit committee of the IWA-Forest Industry Pension Plan as well as at the Chemainus sawmill, I was aware that when we created an education trust, there had to be trustees. There were trustees appointed from the various groups that were impacted by the trust.

I guess my question is: because you're talking about setting up a trust and having it comply with the Trustees Act, could you give a fuller explanation of what kind of trust you would have? Would there be trustees in compliance with the act? Or are there some other ideas on how you would handle this money if it were not to be dealt with, with a group of trustees?

[1440]

Hon. P. Bell:

Section 25(4) simply describes the types of investments that would be made as opposed to the structure of the fund. We've left the options of how to structure the fund open for discussion by the two parties for development through that process. The actual

section of the bill simply defines what types of investments may be made. Those are articulated under the Trustee Act and would have to be compliant with the Trustee Act.

But the actual fund and whether it's trustees or how that's managed would be discussed and developed as a result of the consultation process with the two groups.

B. Routley: Under 25(3) it says: "Money paid into the fund, or received by the authority for the fund, is not subject to any process of garnishment, attachment, execution or seizure under any legal process by any creditor of the authority." Could you explain the reason for that comprehensive list of things that you're not able to do with the money? Are there other provisions that affect the collection of this money that are not seen in that clause? Or is that the complete list?

Hon. P. Bell: The purpose of this

section is to ensure that if whoever it is that manages this fund on behalf of the group that is intended to receive benefits from the fund were to get in some sort of legal problems, if they were facing some form of legal problems to do with perhaps some other business that they perform, the fund itself would be protected exclusively for the use of the parties to which it was originally developed. So it just simply protects the dollars in the fund.

I've mentioned before that there have been some early discussions with the travel insurance group. They provide insurance or they provide work for the travel industry. If they were to get into legal trouble as a result of that work, this piece, this specific section, of the bill would protect the moneys that were in this organization specifically targeted at forest service providers. It just anticipates that whoever is the trustee may or may not have other business interests, and the need to protect this fund for the use for which it has been developed.

N. Macdonald: This is more for background, I think. The minister talked about building up a fund to approximately the level of $20 million. That number, if I

[ Page 5715 ]

understood it correctly, is likely not chosen just at random. Does that correspond to where, over a 25-year period or a ten-year period, the sort of problems this bill is intended to address came to a figure close to $20 million?

Am I correct in assuming that that's why the minister is aiming for a fund that would approximate that size, or is there another reason for looking at a fund of approximately that size?

Hon. P. Bell: I may have misstated in my previous comments that that was the specific target of the fund. I used the $5 million and $20 million amounts as examples of what would likely end up being the exposure in the event of a bankruptcy of a mid-sized company.

Pope and Talbot was about a $5 million exposure. If it was a larger licensee…. I don't particularly want to name them in the House because they're all solvent and doing just fine today and, hopefully, will be doing fine for a long time. But the member will know who the top three or four licensees in the province are, and a licensee of that size could result in an exposure of up to $20 million.

[1445]

The amount of money that will be necessary in the fund will be the subject of the consultations that we do with both the licensee group and the harvesting sector or the forest service providers.

It may or may not be $20 million or more — or less, potentially. The $20 million is what would be the likely exposure for the very large, the top three or four — the highest level of exposure from a single bankruptcy that you might expect. The $5 million is more reflective of a company the size of Pope and Talbot, which we have some experience with.

B. Routley: Just on setting up this trust, which is what this talks about. This may establish the act. I just want to put my oar in the water to suggest that I think all of the stakeholders ought to be putting money into the fund.

The idea, as I understand it, is kind of a self-insurance type of policy. You're going to put money into the fund, and then you're going to have a situation where people won't be caught and which will actually create cascading bankruptcies in the event of another failure of a major licensee. That seems to be the target of it. Certainly, I would think that it should be an assessment against all stumpage.

Back to the…. Maybe you thought you answered it, but I didn't hear it. It was the question of the Trustee Act. It says in (4): "…respecting the investment of trust property by a trustee." So if we're talking about a trustee, yet there doesn't seem to be an indication that there will be a trustee, is that just a notion? Will there actually be a trustee? Will this be the minister, or will it be some other person identified somewhere else in regulations?

I just would like clarity when we're talking about trustees, yet the answer I thought I heard was that there wouldn't be a trustee or multiple trustees.

Hon. P. Bell: This

section is intended to require the authority to act like a trustee. It doesn't necessarily need to be a trustee, but it would have to act like a trustee. Whether or not they actually are a trustee would be the topic of discussion during the consultations with the two groups in the development of this particular fund.

Section 25 approved.

section 26.

N. Macdonald: Again, the presumption here is that much of this still needs to be decided upon, but very clearly, with subsection (2), the minister is looking at the possibility of using additional stumpage. Maybe the minister can go through some of the tools that the government is considering.

I realize that until negotiations are finished, the minister wouldn't want to be definitive, but clearly, stumpage is one of the tools that the minister is looking at. What sorts of things is the minister thinking of there, and what additional tools is the minister considering?

Hon. P. Bell: The member for Cowichan Valley, in the previous question, commented that it was his view that everyone, all stakeholders, should be contributors to the fund. I think that generally speaking, I would agree with that statement.

This creates the opportunity for an incremental fund of some kind to be charged to a stumpage regime. We thought it was prudent to have that tool available, but there are a variety of options that could come to bear here.

I think back to my log-harvesting days and how the then workers compensation system used to work. It was something that was required of each individual person — to go in and acquire their workers compensation for a given stand of timber or for a given job. Or you might purchase it over a period of time. So

[1450]

There are a variety of options. Specific to stumpage, we thought it was prudent to have that tool available to us, and that was required to have in the act.

N. Macdonald: Essentially, the plan is to set up a self-financing insurance plan. Is the minister considering having that run by an outside organization, like some sort of a private entity that would run the fund, or is it thought that that fund would always be controlled and within a government structure?

Hon. P. Bell: The actual authority, we expect, would be outside of government, as is the travel insurance fund. However, government may act as an agent on behalf of the authority to collect moneys, whether it be through the stumpage regime or perhaps some other form of payment as well. So government could act as an agent,

[ Page 5716 ]

but it would not be the authority. The authority would be outside of the entity.

B. Routley: Just to understand, under the definition of "contributor," it says: "…means a person in a class of persons designated by regulation to make payments to the fund." Then under 26(1) it talks about: "A contributor must make payments to the fund…." So a contributor…. It seems to be left fairly wide open — in other words, as designated by regulation.

Is there a list of known contributors at this time, or are there some that are being contemplated in regulation, or is there a committee working on this? Where is that at? Do we have an answer for who all will be a contributor to this fund? Could there be people outside the forest industry that you may have contemplated that should pay into this fund?

Hon. P. Bell: I suspect that the obvious individuals, those that benefit from the fund…. The member for Cowichan Valley earlier in his remarks suggested that stakeholders should all participate in the fund. I think that's probably a safe bet.

This particular regulation, actually, is fairly broad-reaching, as the member points out. Any individual group or class of individuals could be defined by the regulation as responsible for paying into this fund. While I suspect that the practical outcome will be much narrower, the legislation does provide for regulatory-making powers, which leaves options open to government.

Sections 26 to 28 inclusive approved.

section 29.

N. Macdonald: In

section 29 "Decision is final" is the title, then. Can the minister explain the need for this particular

section and what the thinking is behind it? I'll just leave it with the minister to explain what

section 29 is intended to do.

[1455]

Hon. P. Bell: The principle behind this particular

section is to get the decisions, particularly in cases of insolvency, out of the courts and into the authority — the authority being the group that is developed as a result of the two entities that are in consultation on this.

One of the barriers in the past around the court processes has been that that's where oftentimes these things have ended up — more often than not unsuccessfully from the perspective of the contractors. Clearly, we saw that through the Pope and Talbot dissolution. The point was to get it out of the courts and, except in the case of jurisdiction or the question of law, not having the courts go back in and have these issues appealed over and over again. So that was the intent of the section.

Section 29 approved.

section 30.

N. Macdonald: Here again, just an explanation. Presumably the authority has yet to be defined, but maybe the minister can just explain quickly what

section 30 is intended to do.

Hon. P. Bell: It simply allows the minister to designate who the authority is. In some of our earlier discussions I have suggested that we would not be opposed to considering other groups. The act may be amended somewhere down the road to meet their needs. That could conceivably change who the authority may be or who the responsible parties within the authority may be. So it just creates the flexibility to allow the minister, by order-in-council, to make that designation.

Section 30 approved.

section 31.

N. Macdonald:

Section 31(4) gives the minister, with the approval of cabinet, the ability, with written notice, to change the administrative agreement, which is what

section 31 deals with. Clearly, there's a purpose to that. Maybe the minister could explain, in particular, the need for that subsection (4).

Hon. P. Bell: This

section simply allows the minister to make changes to the initial authority. As an example, silviculture contractors were added to this act. At some point down the road, it may be deemed that the authority may have to change for some reason, or the persons responsible for it may have to change. It just creates the flexibility that once the authority is established, you can amend the authority.

Section 31 approved.

section 32.

N. Macdonald: In

section 32 it talks about the authority not being an agent of the government for the purposes of the administration. I just wonder: are there any obligations that would be avoided with that legal framing? Like, are there any things that if it was an agent of the government, it would be required to do but when it's not an agent, it's not required to do? If you could explain that, that would be great.

Hon. P. Bell: This

section is intended to keep this entity outside of the entity or government for accounting purposes. From the perspective of generally accepted

[ Page 5717 ]

accounting principles, it keeps them out of the entity, which was the objective of the section.

N. Macdonald: In terms of public accountability and reporting to the public, are there specific rules in place that would make sure that the fund is clear and open for the public as a whole to judge that the funds are being used properly? Maybe the minister could just go through and explain how that openness is retained with this section.

[1500]

Hon. P. Bell: The member's colleague the member for Cowichan Valley was earlier asking questions about a trustee and acting like a trustee. The fact that earlier in this bill whoever manages this needs to act like a trustee will articulate, certainly, some of the principles around public reporting and how they must behave. Also, it's anticipated that in whatever sort of agreement is established with this entity at the outset, it will also articulate the reporting requirements and public accountability functions of the authority.

Section 32 approved.

section 33.

N. Macdonald: Specifically in

section 33, it's just the one sentence: "Section 5 of the Offence Act does not apply…." Just the rationale for that, a quick explanation from the minister as to why.

Hon. P. Bell: This particular

section suggests that it would be inappropriate if someone perhaps missed a specific time frame under which they were required to give notice, or something like that — that there would not be a criminal prosecution.

There are other consequences to missing those times in terms of where they might sit in terms of priority for their claims and that type of thing. But if this

section did not exist, the potential for a quasi-criminal proceeding for something as simple as missing a notification time could come forward. We didn't think that was appropriate.

Sections 33 to 35 inclusive approved.

section 36.

Hon. P. Bell: This particular section…. Government, as a result of some of the comments at second reading, has decided not to move forward with this particular section. Government members will be opposing this

section or voting no to this section.

N. Macdonald: Just very much appreciated. We will certainly be supporting the government's position on this. I think it's the right way forward, so I'm very pleased to hear it.

Section 36 negatived.

Section 37 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. P. Bell: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:04 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

Bill 21 — Forestry Service

Providers Protection Act

Bill 21, Forestry Service Providers Protection Act, reported complete with amendments.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as read?

Hon. P. Bell: With leave, Mr. Speaker, now.

Leave granted.

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 21 — Forestry Service

Providers Protection Act

Bill 21, Forestry Service Providers Protection Act, read a third time and passed.

[1505]

Hon. G. Abbott: I call committee stage debate on Bill 18, the Haida Gwaii Reconciliation Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BIll 18 — Haida Gwaii

Reconciliation Act

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 18; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 3:06 p.m.

section 1.

[ Page 5718 ]

B. Simpson: Since this is an actual new act, it has a

preamble to it. As an opposition member, I don't get notes with it, but we did have an opportunity to go through and talk about this one. Of course, we've had second reading. So I ask the minister and his staff's forbearance. There is some language in here and there are some concepts in here that I do think beg further explanation on the public record.

Part of that is that this act is unique, as the minister indicated in his opening statements and as we've indicated. Since the opening statements and second reading I've had a number of questions come into my e-mail box around this. It is something that is precedent-setting in many respects, and it's something that will make a lasting legacy. I think there needs to be an understanding of how it aligns with other processes in place.

Because it's a new act that has a

preamble, I want to spend a few minutes on the

preamble. Some of the things in the "whereas" statements of the

preamble set the context for what's actually in the statement itself.

This act is interesting from another perspective in that it refers to an agreement, a reconciliation protocol agreement, between Her Majesty the Queen, as represented by the province of British Columbia, and the Haida Nation, and the reconciliation protocol is the frame for what's in the actual act. The act enables that to become the agreement between the Haida and the Queen.

My first question on the

preamble is really for people to better understand the process for developing the reconciliation protocol. What was the nature of the discussion, and what was the nature of the broader community involvement in establishing the protocol that underpins this act?

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for his question. I just note at the outset, here, that I'm joined by senior officials from the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation — on my right, Stephen Dunn, and on my left, Robert Leece. I thank them for joining us today.

There was a high-profile case in the early 2000s involving the Haida and British Columbia and Canada that went as far as the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada indicated that the case should go into abeyance so that the parties could discuss the possibility of a reconciliation between the province and the Haida First Nation.

[1510]

Generally around 2005-2006, I guess, those discussions began. There'd been many facets to those discussions, including the ownership and management of forest resources on Haida Gwaii and many other issues involving both the management of services on Haida Gwaii and the management of resources on Haida Gwaii.

The discussion has been a complex one. But about a year ago now, I guess, in the wake of the decision by the gathering of all the chiefs in the province in August of 2009 not to proceed with any further work on the reconciliation and recognition protocol, the government recommitted to working with either individual First Nations or with aggregations of First Nations, self-identified, to look at the opportunity to reach agreements which would fall short of treaty but which would nevertheless be important building blocks towards treaty.

Just as importantly, they'd be important building blocks to a better relationship between those First Nations and the government of British Columbia and also pieces, important steps, that would help to move a narrowing of that unacceptable gap in social and economic outcomes between First Nations and other communities in British Columbia.

That really was all part of the backdrop to the discussions which occurred largely and intensively during the period from September through to December of 2009, and it culminated in the signing in December of a reconciliation protocol between the Haida First Nation and the government of British Columbia.

Just the day before, I believe — or perhaps it was the day after — we were also able to sign a reconciliation protocol with six northern coastal First Nations that are generally geographically right next to Haida Gwaii — six northern coastal First Nations who also share some economic development plans and economic development organization with the Haida.

Though there are many pieces to this, some of the flavour of what the parties are attempting to do with the reconciliation protocol is, as the member rightly suggests, captured in the

preamble to the bill in front of us.

B. Simpson: I appreciate that background from the minister, but I did ask a specific component to my question, which was: how did the discussion get out to the broader community?

Again, I want to get into it a little bit in terms of traditional territory and the Haida's claims over the area that we formerly called the Queen Charlottes, or will formerly call the Queen Charlottes. For example, one of the e-mails I got from someone was the fact that…. Where was the consultation with the non-aboriginal people

[ Page 5719 ]

who live in the Queen Charlottes — even on changing the name from the Queen Charlottes to Haida Gwaii?

I wonder if the minister can explain what the nature of the broader consultation was with local governments and with non-aboriginal people who live in the Queen Charlottes and who will be impacted by this protocol agreement.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member is right. I neglected to answer the last portion of his question, so I'll attempt to do it this time. The discussion with the communities was an important part of the work in moving towards a reconciliation protocol as well.

Obviously, further to the direction of the Supreme Court of Canada, we were attempting to achieve a reconciliation between the Haida First Nation and the government of British Columbia, but the communities also reflected and expressed a strong interest, at times concern, around the direction of the discussions.

[1515]

I know we had a very good meeting with all of the communities on Haida Gwaii when we were at UBCM last year in Vancouver. We had a long and productive meeting with the mayors and councillors from the communities on Haida Gwaii. We committed, after that meeting, to keep the local governments fully informed of the progress of reconciliation discussions.

As the member knows, I think the communities are very supportive of this agreement. That was reflected in the presence of the regional district director for Haida Gwaii at the ceremony that we had in the rotunda a couple of weeks ago. To my knowledge, the communities are all satisfied and appreciative of the reconciliation protocol.

I think, again, although it's awkward in settings where we have very intensive negotiations, it is sometimes difficult to keep parties informed of progress on a minute-to-minute basis. There's a lot of toing and froing in negotiations, but we did attempt to keep the local governments informed at every step of the progress towards reconciliation protocol.

B. Simpson: I appreciate the sensitive nature of these discussions, so I'm not presuming that the government can actually reveal everything that's going on at the table at any given time, in particular something of this nature where it is a significant shift in recognition of the Haida council, Haida government, etc.

The minister has covered off local government, but the second part of my question was about the general population that lives in the area now referred to as Haida Gwaii. Many of those individuals are individuals whose work will be impacted by some of the deals in the reconciliation act. As the minister is well aware, that's an area that has had a lot of questions about natural resource development, about the bankruptcy of contractors, about the future of some of the licensees. Some of this reconciliation protocol will end up stabilizing some of that.

Given the heightened sensitivity and the years of people being uncertain about the natural resource economy in that area, were there any efforts on the part of the government to communicate to the broader community what was going on as it unfolded? Not after the fact — I have the press release and the things that went out after there was agreement — but as it unfolded.

Hon. G. Abbott: To answer the member's question, there was no formal consultation with respect to the protocol. It would have been difficult, given the very condensed time frame between the time that the parties agreed to the protocol and the time at which it was announced.

[1520]

However, I would note a couple of things. First of all, the protocol builds, and builds extensively, on the strategic land use agreement, which was the product of many years of consultation, public meetings on Haida Gwaii. The strategic land use plan is a foundation document. It was the object of many, many community discussions, and the protocol is consistent with that and builds on that foundation of this strategic land use plan.

The other thing I would note is that the government responded to every inquiry which came its way with respect to the protocol as we received them, and the protocol, it should be noted, does not take into its reach the work of the local governments. That is, relationships, etc., within the bounds of the local government are unaffected by the protocol.

B. Simpson: Given the sensitivities and the nature…. The premise for this — and we'll get into it in certain parts of the bill — is an existing land use act. The minister and I actually had a conversation about that with respect to whether reconciliation agreements were possible in other areas of the province, because that midcoast agreement is among other groups of First Nations that have come together and said that we can do this as well.

In the case of the Haida, it's clear and distinct in terms of the Haida's traditional territory and any overlapping claims. So given sensitivities and given that the government is moving in this direction, has any effort been made in any kind of fulsome fashion to now get in front of the act coming into existence, the council coming into existence, and doing some kind of education campaign in the Queen Charlotte area for the non-aboriginal residents?

Even, I imagine, the Haida Nation will take care of their own folks, but is there any way of working…? Maybe the first task of this council, or whatever the case may be, is to really set the framework so that people

[ Page 5720 ]

understand the nature of what is being debated here today and what will come into effect.

I know — and we'll talk about it later on — that the bill talks about a public website where the decisions of the council and various other things will be posted. But I'm just curious if that's a possibility — if there are plans in place to get out in front of this and make sure people clearly understand the nature of what it is we have in front of us.

[1525]

Hon. G. Abbott: To the member's question in terms of the educational or other information that might assist the public in understanding the reconciliation protocol, the agreement is posted on the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation website. Along with the agreement in its entirety are press releases and backgrounders, which should be of assistance in assisting people to understand the nature of the agreement.

I would also note that we are in the early stages of implementation. We will be working with the Haida to discuss appropriate outreach steps in the weeks and months ahead. We have not, to this date, received any requests from organizations, communities or individuals for public workshops or additional consultation on this. We just haven't received any requests like that. Should we receive them, I certainly would see if we can try to accommodate them, but to this point no one's asked us for that level of information.

B. Simpson: That point is noted. I guess one of the things…. My experience is that you can never do enough education, especially when you're moving into new territory like this.

In my previous life I was a change management consultant. I would always advise people to do a lot more communication on the front end of things to ensure the success of whatever the change initiative was. Err on the side of more, not less, especially something like this, to give it as much foundation for success as possible. In the absence of information, sometimes you create a vacuum where people start filling in their own information, and it would be nice to nip some of that in the bud.

Moving on, then, with respect to the nature of this relationship…. It's a relationship between the council of the Haida Nation and British Columbia. I guess one of the things, for clarity, is: what is the legal standing or the recognition this gives to the Haida Nation?

It's a contractual arrangement between two entities. It's clear in the contractual arrangement the Crown's legal standing; it's not clear on the Haida's legal standing. I know bands and others have to go through some legal processes in order to be recognized, whether they're recognized under the Indian Act or a not-for-profit society or whatnot. I'm just not clear what the nature of the legal standing of the Haida Nation is in this case.

The Chair: Hon. Members, please be advised that we will move to the consideration of

section 1, but we will not take the vote on the

preamble until the conclusion of the bill.

[1530]

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

Hon. G. Abbott: I think the best answer I can provide is that the council of the Haida Nation is a voluntary aggregation of two First Nation villages: Skidegate and Old Massett. They have come together voluntarily under the constitution of the Haida Nation. In the protocol agreement itself it is recognized that this is an agreement between the Haida Nation, as represented by the Council of the Haida Nation, and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia.

B. Simpson: Again, laws of this land are subject to legal challenge — right? We've had that for regulations and laws. We canvassed this with the First Nations woodlands licence, where I asked the minister questions around the legality of what was happening and whether or not it could be challenged. Forest and range agreements, which were its predecessor, were in fact challenged in the court, and the Crown lost that case.

Because this is an agreement technically between two legal entities, I'm just wondering whether or not the nature of the Haida Nation…. The Haida Nation — we'll get into it later on — then gets to appoint two members to a council, and the Crown gets to appoint two members of the council.

Normally, contractual arrangements — protocol agreements or whatever — are between, in my understanding, legally recognized entities. Is there no sort of legal frame other than that the Crown recognizes the Haida Nation and therefore the Crown recognizes it as having standing? Is that really what's happening here? Because the Crown recognizes it, it has standing to enter into an agreement?

Hon. G. Abbott: I think governments have the opportunity to extend recognition to entities in the First Nations world, and our inclination is to recognize them in whatever aggregation the First Nations believe is appropriate. As I noted in my first answer, the Council of the Haida Nation is a voluntary aggregation of Skidegate and Old Massett under the constitution of the Council of the Haida Nation.

Similarly, we have the protocol agreement, the reconciliation protocol, with six northern coastal First Nations who have voluntarily aggregated, and we have embraced an opportunity to sign an agreement with them as well.

I guess the final thing I'd note, in terms of any discomfort that the member may have around whether an

[ Page 5721 ]

So I think all of that is comforting in terms of the security of this arrangement from a legal standing perspective.

B. Simpson: It's not so much my discomfort. I want to be clear about that. It's just trying to understand the nature of the agreement and the act we have in front of us. We have an obligation as opposition to try and make sure there's clarity around these things. We have had laws come in that have to be significantly amended later on or laws that have been challenged in court.

The minister's point about the legal standing of the Haida Nation in the case of the Supreme Court. You know, the court has already recognized them as an entity. I'll canvass some of my more specific questions around that as we get into it. But let me just say that part of what's happening here is that there's a formal agreement that's going to occur, which has significant implications over land.

The inherent conflict that exists in the protocol agreement — and it's explicit in the first "whereas" of the protocol agreement — is that the Haida say that it's their land, and the Crown says that it ain't; it's Crown land. That's part of what is interesting and unique about this relationship.

[1535]

The other way of addressing that is, of course, through treaty. It leads me to the second "whereas," where it says that this reconciliation protocol represents an incremental step in the process of reconciliation between the Haida and Crown with respect to titles. I wonder if the minister could just explain what the nature of the steps going forward is and the relationship between this agreement and what it does for treaty.

Hon. G. Abbott: I appreciate the member's very good question, and I think the member has captured the issue fairly succinctly.

What the government of British Columbia and the Council of the Haida Nation have done in the protocol agreement is essentially take their very different views of title and sovereignty on the area we're now calling Haida Gwaii and state those upfront in the agreement and then agree to park our disagreement so that we can go on and articulate many different ways that we can work together on Haida Gwaii to better the economic and social conditions of the Haida and, hopefully, to bring greater prosperity to the islands generally.

In terms of the relationship between reconciliation protocol and treaty — again, this is a very important question and one we've given much thought to — we believe that reconciliation protocol is a very strong step towards treaty but, nevertheless, falls short of treaty because of that continuing disagreement over how the issue of aboriginal title will ultimately be resolved on Haida Gwaii.

We certainly believe the protocol to be consistent with treaty, and in fact, there will be some accounting in the long term about some of the provisions. The $10 million for potential acquisition on a willing buyer, willing seller basis of tenure would be one example of where that element might form some small percentage of a future treaty.

I am glad the member asked this question, because I think it's fundamentally important. We need to find a variety of paths to reconciliation between the government of British Columbia and First Nations. If we are going to hang our hats solely on treaties, it is going to take a long time for us to begin to make a difference to all 203 First Nations in the province of British Columbia. We need to find different steps, large and small, and different paths to reconciliation.

With the reconciliation protocol with the Haida and the reconciliation protocol with the six northern coastal First Nations, with the strategic engagement agreement that came just a little bit later between six central and southern coastal First Nations — called the Nanwakolas group — and the government of British Columbia, we have some different opportunities to reach agreements with First Nations, to try to get further economic involvement by the First Nations in the resource economy of British Columbia and begin to improve some of the social and economic outcomes that continue to be a wrong way for First Nations in the province.

It's a step forward. What we try to do in every case is be consistent with what we would have in a treaty but treat all of these as building blocks to treaty rather than hanging our hat on that one final resolution of all these issues, which is treaty.

We have seen treaties, an average of about one every five years in terms of completion. That would be a slow pace to get where we want to go in British Columbia. We want to speed up the treaty process and get more successes there. I think I'm relatively optimistic that we're turning a corner on that. But notwithstanding that optimism, we need to find other ways to get there, and reconciliation protocol is one of those ways.

[1540]

B. Simpson: I'm struggling myself here, because I don't want my questions to be perceived to be opposed to the direction being taken. However, we have an obligation to do due diligence around the nature of the agreement, and I want to state that for the public record.

The reason for that is that as the minister has already indicated, there is a bit of a presumption of a potential

[ Page 5722 ]

outcome of treaties here — the money for buying, potentially, tree farm licences or licences that are available in a willing-seller arrangement, the potential for some of the land that's involved in this, etc.

It begs the question then — and there's a reason for this question that I'll get to in another one: is the Crown not actually recognizing that by entering into an agreement with the Haida Nation, by recognizing the Haida Nation as an entity with a claim or a historical legacy…? We're now entering as the Crown into an agreement with them. There is land that has been agreed upon. There is a presumption of eventually resolving something. Are we not actually recognizing in a de facto way that there is some sense of First Nations title over the land that is coming under the management agreement?

Hon. G. Abbott: I think the answer to the member's important question is this. At the outset of the reconciliation protocol agreement, there is stated right up at the front the differing views of the province of British Columbia and the Council of the Haida Nation with respect to aboriginal title and sovereignty on Haida Gwaii.

The agreement certainly recognizes the division of opinion, but the agreement doesn't go any further to defining or resolving the issue of aboriginal claim on Haida Gwaii beyond providing for those statements of the difference. That resolution is something that will likely, I think, only come with treaty. There will be much work done around the issue.

Haida Gwaii is unique in that there are no overlapping claims, as the member noted earlier. There are few, if any, places in British Columbia where one would not find some overlap in terms of First Nations claim, but on Haida Gwaii it is only the Haida that are acknowledged to have had occupancy of those islands for thousands of years. So it is a special situation. The parties are just being, I think, very frank and honest about their difference of opinion, and we recognize the differences of opinion, but the agreement itself doesn't pretend to resolve those differences of view with respect to aboriginal title.

B. Simpson: I'm on the bottom end of a very steep learning curve as I've taken on this challenge. It's quite fascinating.

[1545]

I want to go back to what the minister had indicated about: how do you bridge the socioeconomic gap in the absence of treaties? It's not just that the treaty process takes a long time; it's that the majority of British Columbia bands are not involved in the treaty process now. So you have to get over that hurdle to get into treaty and then the treaty process itself. I get that.

One of the dialogues I've been having as I've gone around the province and spoken with First Nations leaders is: how do you get to what I believe the government is actually attempting to get to in not just this agreement but the other agreements that the minister spoke to? How do you address the socioeconomic gap in the absence of resolving the title issue? We need to address the socioeconomic gap more hastily than what that process is doing.

The line of questioning I've got here — and I'll move on and ask some specific questions — is just: are we not already presuming outcomes? Are we not already having to say: "Look, we get it"? The minister actually said it — that the Haida have occupancy in that region. They've got clear lines in terms of their title arguments that other bands don't enjoy in other places, with overlapping claims and having to have proof of claim and all of those things. By entering into this agreement, I guess it's just the issue of whether we are being presumptive.

Let me go on to specifics, because the minister didn't actually answer the part of the question. The minister answered the question more fully than I was asking, but there was part of it of how this fits into treaty. Will the treaty discussions continue? This states that it's incremental, so what is it incremental to? Will that continue?

The role of Canada in all this. I note that in the actual reconciliation protocol, under the

definitions it defines "framework agreement" as between Haida, Canada and British Columbia. Where does Canada play a role in this, because they're not actually mentioned in the reconciliation act?

We hope and expect that treaty discussions will continue involving the Haida and Canada and British Columbia. In fact, there are discussions ongoing with the federal government about the possibilities there. A treaty agreement is one which involves land and cash principally. There can be other issues raised, and treaties are complex agreements that often involve many different elements. But land and cash, along with governance issues, tend to be the most important issues in a treaty.

The treaty agreements only proceed when, generally speaking, the federal government often has their cash component, and the province brings land. The treaty discussions proceed along as quickly or slowly as the treaty participants are able to make them happen. It's difficult to say in the case of the Haida whether there

[ Page 5723 ]

will be rapid movement in the wake of the reconciliation protocol or whether the discussions will continue at the fairly slow pace that they have been to this point.

There are certainly great opportunities for First Nations in treaty, and we want them to move along as quickly as we can, but we also have to be honest in noting that a treaty is probably the most important decision that a First Nation ever makes in its life. Of course, they want to ensure that the right decisions are being made.

I hope that addresses the member's question. We do think that the protocol is consistent with treaty, and we hope it will be both a building block and a stimulus to further progress with respect to treaty discussions.

[1550]

B. Simpson: I appreciate that clarification. I guess it remains to be seen — the relationship between the two. Continuing on just quickly, there are only a couple of other points on the

preamble, but it does set the tone for the rest.

In the third "whereas," it states that the reconciliation protocol and the new relationship are intended by the Haida Nation of British Columbia to guide joint decision-making regarding land and natural resource management on Haida Gwaii.

I wonder if the minister can clarify the nature of the term "new relationship" there, because the reconciliation protocol is an actual document. In the document it uses "new relationship" as an outcome of the document, but as the minister knows, there is a document that exists called The New Relationship . If we're going to put the new relationship document as having standing in

an act, then we need to know whether that has been signed off, and so on, or whether this is just the new relationship that's referred to that is hoped to be arrived at as a result of the reconciliation protocol.

Hon. G. Abbott: The answer to the question is that it is the latter. As I'm sure the member knows, in this case "the new relationship" is not capitalized. It is not a reference to the specific document, the new relationship agreement. It is a stated intention for us to build a new and better relationship between the parties.

B. Simpson: Thank you, I appreciate that. I had assumed that because it wasn't capitalized, that might be the case, but we all know what happens when you assume something. It's better to clarify it. Thank you for the clarification.

The next "whereas" refers to a commitment on the part of the parties to further refine and develop the processes for operational-level decision-making on Haida Gwaii. Again I wonder, for the record, if the minister can clarify what the nature of that is, because there's a

section in here that deals with amendments and makes changes to the act. What is the nature of that refining and developing, and what's the process?

Hon. G. Abbott: The answer to the member's question with respect to this particular element in the

preamble…. It is about operational-level decision-making. There has been some work undertaken on Haida Gwaii in recent months and years with respect to how to better manage decision-making on Haida Gwaii, how to create efficient and streamlined decision-making between the Haida and statutory officials and others on Haida Gwaii, on forestry and other areas of resource management.

[1555]

The solutions table, as it's termed currently, is a pilot project which will, as we discuss further refinements to it with the Haida, become the operational-level decision-making authority for the islands.

B. Simpson: I get that point. There's a table that specifically is doing the refining and developing as the management council comes together and does the actual work.

Maybe I can just clarify. So this solutions table will continue to exist and will sort of watch as this thing evolves and unfolds. We'll have the discussion of how to make it better and then feed that into — we're going to get into the structure of the management council here — the management council. If there's need for any refinements that require legislation or regulation, then that's where that would come from. I just want to make sure I understand that that's what the minister is suggesting.

Hon. G. Abbott: I appreciate the member's question. It is important to get clarity with respect to these issues. Yes, the solutions table will continue. The solutions table will be the Haida and the government of British Columbia working on operational-level or on-the-ground kinds of issues or decisions. Approval of a permit, for example, might be something that would be undertaken at the operational level or the solutions table level.

There will be a strategic-level decision-making body as well, and it's referenced in here, which is the management council. I'm sure we'll be talking more about that. But the management council is strategic level as opposed to the operational level of the solutions table.

B. Simpson: We may have some questions to come back to with respect to decision-making a bit later on and with respect to the communications of the solution table's deliberations using that public website, etc.

The final two "whereases" get to the heart of some of my questions around legal standing of the Haida Nation. The second-to-last "whereas" — and it's in the reconciliation protocol — talks about the Haida Nation in British Columbia operating under "their respective

[ Page 5724 ]

authorities and jurisdictions." Then later on, the last "whereas" states that the Haida Nation will provide its necessary legal authority to the reconciliation protocol just as British Columbia is providing its legal authority to it through this act.

First off, would the minister explain what the nature of the Haida Nation's process is for providing legal authority?

Hon. G. Abbott: The Haida House of Assembly will be the legal authority in terms of the Haida and their commitment to this agreement.

B. Simpson: Again, just for the public record, does the House of Assembly then debate this, or does the government already have, in effect, assent? Or is it a special and discrete discussion, dialogue, debate that leads to a resolution of some kind so that there is actually documentation for this portion of the Crown's act which says that the Haida will give the reconciliation protocol legal standing within the Haida?

[1600]

Is there a discrete decision that's made, recorded and noted in order to make that come into effect?

Hon. G. Abbott: The answer is yes. There will be resolutions brought before the House of Assembly, which will give effect to the legal commitments of the Haida under this agreement.

B. Simpson: I appreciate the forbearance of the Chair for us doing the

preamble, because it doesn't get passed until later. We're now moving on to

section 1, and one of the other members is going to begin the questioning on that.

G. Coons: Thank you very much, Minister and staff. Again, a very historic document before us. There's been quite a struggle over the years with the Haida and the resource extraction and the concerns that they've had with the billions of dollars that have left the islands and — to some degree, in some people's minds — not much left behind.

When we look at where we are right now with Bill 18, I see it as a symptom of honouring the Crown and recognizing aboriginal rights and title. Unfortunately, the Haida had to go all the way to the Supreme Court in 2004 and won.

Again, when we look at

section 1 and look at some of the

definitions, we're talking about the council. I'm just wondering what the mission or the mandate or the vision or the purpose of the council would be.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm certain the member will have further detailed questions, perhaps as we get to

section 3, which begins to articulate the role, etc., of the council. I guess in

summary, the management council is a body which will deal with the strategic level versus the operational level, as I discussed with the critic a few minutes ago. Its role is to provide advice and decisions in respect of five important areas of land and resource management on Haida Gwaii.

Again, I think it's probably appropriate to deal with those in

section 3, but I'm happy to have the discussion here too — whichever the Chair would prefer.

G. Coons: I'm just wondering about the framework for the council and the procedures. Has that been developed yet? Is that available, say, on a public website?

Hon. G. Abbott: The management council has not been fully articulated yet. However, the basic structure has been agreed to, which involves the appointment of two Haida representatives and two government of British Columbia representatives to the council.

There will be a fifth neutral chair of the council, but the neutral chair would not always be engaged. The council may largely operate with discussions between the two Haida representatives and the two provincial government representatives. But should they have an impasse or disagreement, the neutral chair may be called upon to be the final decision-maker with respect to a dispute between the parties.

The Chair: Member for North Coast, bearing in mind that these issues are discussed in

section 3.

[1605]

G. Coons: Yes. As the minister referred to

section 3, it gives a makeup of the council. But I'm more getting into a definition, a framework, a mandate, a vision of the council. I'm under the impression that it hasn't been formally developed yet. I'm just wondering what the time frame is for developing this vision or this framework — what the time frame for developing it would be.

Hon. G. Abbott: The detailed procedures for the operation of the council and how it will make decisions and disseminate those decisions, etc., are still being discussed. We expect that by the end of summer those discussions will be completed, and it is the aim of the parties that the management council be up and running in the early fall. I'm not sure whether that addresses the member's question.

In terms of the vision — I think the member used the term "vision" at one point in his question — I guess the best way to summarize the vision which underlies the management council is that the Haida Nation believes it's important that they have a strong voice in strategic-level decision-making on Haida Gwaii. As the reconciliation protocol was being negotiated, we arrived

[ Page 5725 ]

at the management council as the most practical vehicle for delivering on that vision.

G. Coons: Thank you, Minister. Again, the importance of this…. As I mentioned before, it's historic. It seems like we're moving ahead with this legislation with the management council in place and in legislation, and we're working on the framework for how the council is going to move forward. It hasn't been articulated yet, and it's going to be the end of the summer, perhaps.

I'm just wondering: are there any other First Nations management councils in the province or, say, anywhere across the country that you know of?

Hon. G. Abbott: I think it's fair to say that the Haida reconciliation protocol in particular, but also the northern coastal First Nations reconciliation protocol, has attracted considerable interest and attention from other First Nations in the province. We are currently in the process of seeing whether the strategic engagement agreement between the Nanwakolas and the government of British Columbia could be moved up to a reconciliation protocol status.

I think that there is considerable interest on the part of the Gitanyow and others, as well, for reconciliation protocol. But those discussions are at a relatively early stage. I think it would be fair to say, in response to the member's question, that it has generated much interest, and I suspect we will see other reconciliation protocols in the future in this province.

[1610]

G. Coons: My last question on this, I think — unless there's something else to add — is…. Again, the management council is very unique, and there's an obligation on the Haida's part, as the minister said, to look at the framework and the vision they have, but also there's an obligation, I guess, on the minister's part to ensure that the public interest is taken into account also, and especially for those on Haida Gwaii.

I'm just going to move on to the next definition, then: "decision." You've got in the

definitions in this Bill 18 that "decision" includes the following: establishing objectives, determining allowable annual cut, a management plan and something under 7(2), which is "heritage sites." I'm just wondering, as far as these decisions, who is making these decisions. What type of flow is there for helping these decisions to be made by the council?

Hon. G. Abbott: I just want to ask the member…. I want to be clear what the question was that he was asking. Was the question in relation to the definition of "decision," which is the second of the

definitions?

G. Coons: Yes.

Hon. G. Abbott: Okay. The items referred to in the "decision" definition are all elements of the decision-making purview of the management council. All decisions of the council must be published in the Gazette , again because it's important for there to be clarity and transparency around the decisions which are rendered or provided by the council.

B. Simpson: Just some clarity under "decision," because it's interesting to have "decision" defined when you're in the process of putting a management council together. Then, as we've already canvassed, you'll have this solutions table and, of course, management decisions around what is, in effect, the essence of the agreement — shared decision-making around natural resources.

But if I understand it correctly — and I do ask the minister to clarify for me — what effectively "decision" is in this is very circumscribed. The management council is actually only meeting for circumscribed purposes, and the circumscribed purposes are why "decision" is being defined in this manner. If I understand it correctly, it's the establishing of the objectives, which we'll get into shortly; the determination of the annual allowable cut; the approval of a management plan; and, then, establishing policies and standards under another section.

Unless this is amended, it's the only reason that that council will actually come together to make decisions around these four statements.

[1615]

Hon. G. Abbott: In answer to the member's question — and again, we may have the opportunity to explore this more fully — the areas where the management council will have a purview is:

"2.2.1 Implementation and amendment of the Haida Gwaii strategic land use agreement; 2.2.2 Establishment and implementation and amendment of land use objectives for forest practices; 2.2.3 Determination and approval of the annual allowable cut for Haida Gwaii; 2.2.4 Approval of management plans for protected areas; 2.2.5 Developing policies and standards for the identification and conservation of heritage sites; and 2.2.6 Other strategic level management matters that the parties delegate to the Haida Gwaii Management Council."

So to this point, those have been the areas that have been delegated to the management council by the parties. In addition to that, though, the Haida Gwaii Management Council has the following additional responsibilities.

These are the two that I think are relevant to the member's question: in 2.3.1, "Development of a comprehensive Haida Gwaii forestry management strategy that maintains ecological integrity and supports a sustainable Haida Gwaii economy, for consideration by the parties"; and 2.3.2, "Monitoring and review of the effectiveness of the solutions table."

Those are two areas beyond the five that the member previously identified where the management council may meet and monitor, review, develop and so on.

[ Page 5726 ]

B. Simpson: I think this is an important point for clarification in terms of how this council is going to function. If I could, with the latitude of the Chair and the minister, make sure that we are clear on this.

It's interesting. Again, in the

definitions of this legal act, the term "decision" is circumscribed. The term "decision" isn't as broad as the minister just articulated it, which is referencing some of the things in the actual reconciliation protocol. And that's what I'm trying to understand. In

section 3 of this, which we will get to, subsection (5) says: "A decision of the council must be published in the Gazette." Yet in the

definitions section, the word "decision" is circumscribed to only four things, not other things.

So I'm not quite…. Again, this sets a legal constraint, it seems to me, around the management council that is very, very circumscribed, and I wonder if the minister can clarify if there are other uses of the word "decision."

If, for example, in

section 3, where it says, "A decision of the council must be published in the Gazette," could it be a decision other than establishing objectives under

section 4(1), which is the forest and range practices objectives; determining the annual allowable cut; approving a management plan, which is under

section 6(2); or establishing policies and standards under

section 7(2), which is the conservation and heritage component? Otherwise, "decision" has two meanings in this act, which I think makes it unclear.

[1620]

Hon. G. Abbott: The answer to the important question is this. The four elements that are articulated under the definition of "decision" on page 2 of the bill are responsibilities that must be delegated and therefore are done through this provision. The other areas of decision-making do not require that delegation by the province of British Columbia.

B. Simpson: My apologies for being so specific on this, but I guess, then, the way out is that the definition of "decision" simply "includes the following." Is that where the other things that can happen…? "Decision" just simply "includes the following," and that's why you circumscribe these four. Is that correct?

It looks like I've created some quizzical looks over there. The term "decision" is in the act throughout, and what I'm trying to understand is the nature of circumscribing that term. As the minister was speaking, I realized that the definition actually says "includes the following," which means it actually is not defining "decision" as "only the following." Therefore, later on, when you talk about decisions of the management council, it can include other things too. Is that the legal kind of nature of this?

Hon. G. Abbott: I think the member pretty much captured it. These four are noted because these are the four areas where the delegation of responsibilities is required, and therefore, the publication in the Gazette is required. That's not to say that other things may not be published in the Gazette , but these must be published in the Gazette because they are delegated responsibilities from the province to the council.

B. Simpson: While we're under the definition of "decision," then…. I really appreciate the forbearance to clarify that for me, because I was quite confused by it.

One of the questions that I had is…. The minister has already mentioned the $10 million towards the acquisition of forest tenures, the resource revenue–sharing. Of course, these agreements are unprecedented in their inclusion of carbon and the potential carbon economy. Then, of course, the overall intent is to address the socioeconomic gap and the social well-being of the Haida people as well as the people of the entire Haida Gwaii region.

Will that management council be the entity, then…? Is part of their decisions to make the decisions around the potential willing purchase, using the $10 million, of the resource revenue–sharing, etc.? Will this council be the entity that also makes determinations with respect to those resources, for example?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member may want to do a follow-up question on this, because I'm not sure I've captured every nuance that may be involved in the question. It would not be for the management council to decide where and when the investment of all or some portion of the $10 million might go into the purchasing of a tenure. That would be a decision for the Council of the Haida Nation versus the management council. But there may be other nuances that I've not captured in that answer.

B. Simpson: No. Fair enough, and we won't pursue that too much further. My understanding is…. Again, it's just the clarity, because when this was announced, the B.C. and Haida chief historic reconciliation protocol…. The reconciliation protocol is a part of a broader set of agreements with the Haida Nation, which includes the $10 million, etc.

[1625]

I'll ask this question here because it pulls "council" and decision-making of the council together. That is, what is the administrative framework for this entity that's coming into existence, defined as the "council"? How is it going to be structured administratively? Where does that budget get derived from? Are there implications for staffing from the government or Haida? What is the administrative structure of this entity called the management council?

[ Page 5727 ]

Hon. G. Abbott: In terms of the staffing and administration, those are details which are currently under discussion between the province and the Haida Nation. In terms of how it will be paid for, British Columbia will pay for its own costs in terms of the administration and operation of the council.

The Haida will do the same, but it should be noted that within the agreement there is a budget for $600,000 per year for five years to the Haida for implementation. It will be their choice as to where they spend the money and how they spend the money. It might be reasonably expected that they'll use all or some portion of the $600,000 for this purpose, but that would be a decision that the Haida will make.

B. Simpson: Questions about the money are beyond the purview of this because it's not actually part of the reconciliation agreement, but I know that's part of the some of the dialogue that's going on around here. So let's move on.

In the

definitions, "land" is specifically defined as including the "foreshore and land covered by water." What's the reason for defining "land" in this fashion? Is this presumptive of some activity that may occur, or was it requested by the Haida Nation?

Hon. G. Abbott: The definition of "land" which is contained in Bill 18 is intended to clarify that the agreement covers not just land but foreshore or land covered by water.

B. Simpson: I think that's self-evident in the definition. My question, though, was: is it presumptive of giving the management council, the Crown and the Haida Nation, the ability to move beyond…?

My understanding just now, the foundation for this, is the land and resource plan that exists, which to my understanding is land in its proper sense. It's the natural resources, forestry resources, on the land that is above the waterline. This extends that beyond the land above the waterline, and I'm curious as to why the extension is in here. Is there a reason for making the definition broader?

[1630]

Hon. G. Abbott: The definition is intended to clarify and be consistent with current practice. There are many instances around the province, as the member knows, where provincial tenures are provided for foreshore uses and for land covered by water, interior lakes and so on.

The definition provided here does reflect our current view of provincial jurisdiction and does extend that where appropriate and, as identified, does delegate the authority over those areas to the council.

B. Simpson: The questions that this begs, because it extends over a whole other set of resources and potential resources that to my understanding — and I'm happy to be disabused of that understanding — are not currently in the foundation piece that the minister has indicated is part of this reconciliation protocol…. When we had a discussion before about both reconciliation protocols, I had asked the minister: "Well, what about trying to maybe resolve the issue of Prosperity mine in the Cariboo by trying to look at a reconciliation protocol of some kind?" It had to do with the fact that there should be a land and resource plan that exists.

That plan, I think, as the minister has already indicated, drives the true land base portion of what the management council is going to inherit, make decisions around and refine the solutions that the table is working on.

The minute you extend beyond the true land and get into the foreshore land covered by water, you open up the possibility of a whole bunch of other resources that currently don't have management plans in place, hence the reason for the questions — oil and gas exploration offshore, the marine park, aquaculture opportunities, both finfish and shellfish aquaculture.

So have there been discussions leading up to this point that the extension of the definition of land to include what is provincial jurisdiction…? I take the minister's point, if it's reconciling with other agreements of that nature. But the minister's own comments about what is the founding document for this is the true land portion. There isn't a management plan in place for the part that is now underwater.

Was there a dialogue about other future possible resources that could be made available to the Haida Nation through the management council as a result of this extension?

Hon. G. Abbott: I guess there are a couple of ways I could answer this. First, we would probably all consider it very odd if our definition of land did not include foreshore and land covered by water, because that would restrict us quite extensively in terms of some of the issues that may be engaged on Haida Gwaii. So the definition we have here is not to sort of expand. It is to try to clarify and effectively capture our current understanding of provincial jurisdiction in respect of foreshore land.

We think it's also consistent with the strategic land use plan that's in place for Haida Gwaii, and it's certainly consistent with provincial tenures on foreshore for shellfish aquaculture and other activities.

[1635]

So again, the definition is not in here because of the interests that the Haida and the northern coastal First Nations have in shellfish aquaculture. It's consistent with it, but it's here because we just think this is an ac-

[ Page 5728 ]

curate way to define the scope of provincial authority over that area.

It is also consistent, it goes without saying, with the interests that the northern coastal and Haida First Nations have with respect to shellfish aquaculture, but that's not the reason why it's there.

B. Simpson: Fair enough. I guess we'll see how this evolves. I understand that by defining it this way it does make other possibilities exist, but those possibilities are not on the table at this juncture is what the minister is saying.

Let's move on to "management area." The minister indicated some consistency with respect to the land definition, but I would like clarification on two points under "management area."

One is where it says: "land within the boundaries of a reserve, as defined in the Indian Act (Canada)." Was there any discussion about that becoming part of the management area? The minister must know that the First Nations woodland licence does open up the possibility. If you're going to get a circumscribed area-based licence, then the First Nations have the ability to bring the reserve land into that, if they so wish. What's the nature of the discussions? Is it an explicit exclusion? Is it partly because Canada is not a signatory, etc.?

The second part of that question with respect to the management area definition, and it's just for the public record, is (c). For the record, (

c) reads: "land the indefeasible title to which is registered in a land title office in the name of a person other than the Crown." Can that be more clearly described as private land, what people often refer to as fee simple private land?

The reason for asking that question, again, as I'm sure the minister well knows, is that the issue of private land and First Nations rights and title claims is a real bone of contention and a flashpoint. If the minister could just clarify that (

c) is actually referring to fee simple private land.

Hon. G. Abbott: In response to the member's question, in respect of sub (

a) or "land within the boundaries of a reserve, as defined in the Indian Act (Canada)," reserve lands are federal Crown lands, and as such, it would be inappropriate to include them in the management area defined in this agreement. As the member rightly anticipates, the land with indefeasible title, etc., does refer to private fee simple lands.

B. Simpson: Are there any of the lands within the boundaries of a municipality that are under question on Haida? I think the minister has already indicated and, again, for the record, that part of defining management area means the land comprising Haida Gwaii, except these three things: reserve land; land within the boundaries of a municipality; fee simple, privately owned land.

As the minister has already indicated, the Haida claim actually is, of course, over the entire area. They've got the history. They don't have overlapping claims — all the things we've canvassed. Is there land within boundaries of a municipality that then would be disputed maybe under treaty but that the Haida has agreed under this protocol to put in abeyance?

Is that part of what went on, or is it just that they're not really interested in the land within the municipal area and are more just interested where the main natural resources are?

[1640]

Hon. G. Abbott: The issue of title is not engaged in this bill or in the agreement, except to the extent that we discussed it earlier, where the respective views of title are laid out at the outset of the reconciliation protocol.

In terms of sub (

b) here, which is "land within the boundaries of a municipality," it is at least theoretically possible that in treaty discussions down the road, at some point there may be pieces of Crown land within municipalities that might be part of the lands assembled for the land package for a treaty offer, especially if those lands are identified as areas of interest by the Haida First Nation.

Beyond those pieces of Crown land, we can't conceive of any instance where parcels within the boundary of a municipality would come into question. Certainly, they're not engaged by this agreement. They might be by a treaty, but that would be down the line.

B. Simpson: The final definition is the actual reconciliation protocol itself, which should be straightforward, and the first part of the definition is straightforward. It indicates that reconciliation protocol dated for reference December 11, 2009, is what is meant in the act as the reconciliation protocol, with the exception that it includes an amendment under

section 8 of this act at the time.

Section 8 is actually amending the reconciliation protocol. If I understand it correctly,

section 8 says: "The minister, on behalf of the government, may enter into agreements amending the reconciliation protocol." The definition then goes on and says: "(

a) that the amendment is published under subsection (2) (

b) of this section…and (

b) that implementing legislation has been enacted by the Legislature…." There's a whole bunch of other stuff, and it has to be published in the Gazette .

A couple questions around this. First, if you refer to

section 8 and if I can bring it forward because it applies to this definition, has the Haida Nation signed off? It is an amendment to the protocol, and I think it's fair to ask: given that it's amended, has the Haida Nation agreed that this needs to come into the act?

[ Page 5729 ]

Second, it seems to give the minister the right to make agreements to amend the act without going through the management council. What's the nature of the relationship between the minister and the management council for making amendments to the protocol?

Then, third, and it's a simple one: