British Columbia Hansard — Thursday, June 2, 2011

H0602am-04

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Third Session, 39th Parliament official rePort of Debates of the Legis Lative a ssemb Ly (hansarD) the honourable bill bari Soff, SPeaker iSSn 0709-1281 Thursday, June 2, 2011 Morning Sitting Volume 24, Number 4

Pro Vince of britiS h colu Mbia (entered c onfederation July 20, 1871) lieutenant -Go Vernor h is h onour the h onourable Steven l.

Point, obc Third Session, 39th Parliament SPeaker of the leGiS latiVe a SSeMbl Y h onourable bill barisoff eXecutiVe council Premier and President of the executive c ouncil .............................................................................................................. h on. c hristy c lark Deputy Premier and Minister of finance ............................................................................................................................h on. k evin f alcon Minister of a boriginal r elations and r econciliation ...........................................................................................................h on.

Mary Polak Minister of a dvanced e ducation .................................................................................................................................h on. n aomi Y amamoto Minister of a griculture ........................................................................................................................................................... h on.

Don Mcr ae a ttorney General ........................................................................................................................................................... h on. barry Penner, Qc Minister of c hildren and f amily Development ................................................................................................................ h on.

Mary Mcn eil Minister of c ommunity, Sport and cultural Development .................................................................................................. h on. ida c hong Minister of e ducation .........................................................................................................................................................h on.

George a bbott Minister of energy and Mines and Minister r esponsible for h ousing.........................................................................h on. r ich c oleman Minister of environment ....................................................................................................................................................h on. Dr. t erry l ake Minister of f orests, l ands and n atural r esource o perations......................................................................................h on.

Steve Thomson Minister of h ealth .................................................................................................................................................... h on. Michael de Jong, Qc Minister of Jobs, t ourism and innovation ................................................................................................................................... h on. Pat bell Minister of l abour, citizens' Services and o pen Government .............................................................................. h on.

Stephanie c adieux Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General .................................................................................................................h on.

Shirley bond Minister of Social Development and Minister r esponsible for Multiculturalism ............................................................ h on. h arry bloy Minister of t ransportation and infrastructure ................................................................................................................h on. blair l ekstrom leGiS latiVe a SSeMbl Y l eader of the official o pposition ......................................................................................................................................................a drian Dix Deputy Speaker .................................................................................................................................................................................... l inda r eid a ssistant Deputy Speaker ..................................................................................................................................................................Dawn black Deputy c hair, c ommittee of the Whole ...................................................................................................................................Douglas h orne c lerk of the l egislative a ssembly...................................................................................................................e.

George MacMinn, obc, Q c c lerk a ssistant ..................................................................................................................................................................................r obert Vaive c lerk a ssistant and l aw c lerk................................................................................................................................................. ian D. izard, Qc c lerk a ssistant and c lerk of c ommittees ............................................................................................................... craig h.

James (on leave) c lerk a ssistant and a cting c lerk of c ommittees ................................................................................................................. k ate r yan-l loyd Sergeant-at-a rms ................................................................................................................................................................................. Gary l enz

alP habetical liS t of MeMberS a bbott, h on. George (l) ........................................................................ Shuswap a ustin, r obin (nDP) ................................................................................ Skeena bains, h arry (nDP) ....................................................................Surrey-n ewton barisoff, h on. bill (l) ............................................................................Penticton barnett, Donna (l) ................................................................ c ariboo-c hilcotin bell, h on.

Pat (l) ..................................................... Prince George–Mackenzie bennett, bill (l) .............................................................................k ootenay e ast black, Dawn (nDP) ................................................................n ew Westminster black, iain (l) .............................................................. Port Moody–c oquitlam bloy, h on. h arry (l) ............................................................burnaby-l ougheed bond, h on.

Shirley (l) ...........................................Prince George–Valemount brar, Jagrup (nDP) ................................................................ Surrey-fleetwood c adieux, h on. Stephanie (l) .................................................Surrey-Panorama c antelon, r on (l) ..............................................................

Parksville-Qualicum c handra h erbert, Spencer (nDP) ................................Vancouver–West end c hong, h on. ida (l) ..................................................... o ak bay–Gordon h ead c houhan, r aj (nDP) ........................................................... burnaby-e dmonds c lark, h on. c hristy (l) .................................................Vancouver–Point Grey c oell, Murray (l) ..............................................Saanich n orth and the islands c oleman, h on. r ich (l) ........................................... f ort l angley–a ldergrove c onroy, katrine (nDP) .............................................................. k ootenay West c oons, Gary (nDP) .........................................................................n orth c oast c orrigan, k athy (nDP) ..................................................... burnaby–Deer l ake Dalton, Marc (l) ..............................................................

Maple r idge–Mission de Jong, h on. Michael, Qc (l) .............................................. a bbotsford West Dix, a drian (nDP) ............................................................Vancouver-kingsway Donaldson, Doug (nDP) ......................................................................... Stikine e lmore, Mable (nDP) ................................................... Vancouver-kensington f alcon, h on. k evin (l) ..........................................................Surrey-c loverdale f arnworth, Mike (nDP) ............................................................

Port c oquitlam fleming, r ob (nDP) .......................................................... Victoria–Swan l ake f oster, eric (l) .......................................................................Vernon-Monashee f raser, Scott (nDP) ............................................................a lberni–Pacific r im Gentner, Guy (nDP) .........................................................................Delta n orth h ammell, Sue (nDP) .................................................... Surrey–Green t imbers h ansen, c olin (l) ............................................................

Vancouver-Quilchena h awes, r andy (l) ............................................................... a bbotsford-Mission h ayer, Dave S. (l) .................................................................... Surrey-t ynehead h eed, k ash (l) ................................................................ Vancouver-fraserview h ogg, Gordon (l) ............................................................... Surrey–White r ock h organ, John (nDP) .......................................................................

Juan de f uca h orne, Douglas (l) ..............................................c oquitlam–b urke Mountain h oward, r ob (l) .....................................................................r ichmond c entre h untington, Vicki (ind.) ..................................................................Delta South James, c arole (nDP) .........................................................Victoria–b eacon h ill k aragianis, Maurine (nDP) ........................................e squimalt–r oyal r oads k rog, l eonard (nDP) ........................................................................... n anaimo k rueger, kevin (l) ............................................... k amloops–South Thompson kwan, Jenny Wai ching (nDP) ...........................

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant l ake, h on. Dr. t erry (l) .....................................k amloops–n orth Thompson l ali, h arry (nDP) ..........................................................................f raser-n icola l ee, r ichard t . (l) .......................................................................burnaby n orth l ekstrom, h on. blair (l) .......................................................

Peace r iver South l es, John (l) .........................................................................................c hilliwack l etnick, n orm (l) ........................................................k elowna–l ake c ountry MacDiarmid, Dr. Margaret (l) ......................................... Vancouver-fairview Macdonald, n orm (nDP) ....................................c olumbia r iver–r evelstoke Mcintyre, Joan (l) ..................................................West Vancouver–Sea to Sky Mcn eil, h on. Mary (l) .................................................Vancouver–f alse creek Mcr ae, h on.

Don (l) ................................................................... c omox Valley Mungall, Michelle (nDP) ..........................................................n elson-creston Penner, hon. barry, Qc (l) ....................................................c hilliwack-h ope Pimm, Pat (l) ..........................................................................Peace r iver n orth Polak, h on.

Mary (l) ...............................................................................l angley Popham, l ana (nDP) ...................................................................Saanich South r alston, bruce (nDP) ................................................................

Surrey-Whalley r eid, l inda (l) .............................................................................r ichmond e ast r outley, bill (nDP) .................................................................. c owichan Valley r outley, Doug (nDP) ............................................n anaimo–n orth c owichan r ustad, John (l) ........................................................................... n echako l akes Sather, Michael (nDP) ......................................... Maple r idge–Pitt Meadows Simons, n icholas (nDP) ...................................

Powell r iver–Sunshine c oast Simpson, bob (ind.) .....................................................................c ariboo n orth Simpson, Shane (nDP) .....................................................Vancouver-hastings Slater, John (l) ..............................................................boundary-Similkameen Stewart, ben (l) ..................................................................... Westside-kelowna Stilwell, Dr. Moira (l) ......................................................... Vancouver-l angara Sultan, r alph (l) .....................................................

West Vancouver–capilano Thomson, hon.

Steve (l) ........................................................k elowna-Mission Thorne, Diane (nDP) .................................................c oquitlam-Maillardville Thornthwaite, Jane (l) .......................................... n orth Vancouver–Seymour t revena, c laire (nDP) .................................................................... n orth island van Dongen, John (l) .............................................................a bbotsford South Y amamoto, hon. n aomi (l) ................................. n orth Vancouver–l onsdale Y ap, John (l) .......................................................................r ichmond-Steveston liS t of MeMberS bY riD in G a bbotsford-Mission .......................................................................r andy h awes a bbotsford South .....................................................................John van Dongen a bbotsford West ......................................................h on.

Michael de Jong, Qc a lberni–Pacific r im ..........................................................................

Scott f raser boundary-Similkameen .....................................................................John Slater burnaby–Deer l ake ................................................................... k athy c orrigan burnaby-e dmonds ......................................................................... r aj c houhan burnaby-l ougheed ...................................................................h on. h arry bloy burnaby n orth .............................................................................. r ichard t . l ee c ariboo-c hilcotin ........................................................................Donna barnett c ariboo n orth ................................................................................ bob Simpson c hilliwack ...............................................................................................

John l es c hilliwack-h ope .......................................................... h on. barry Penner, Qc c olumbia r iver–r evelstoke .................................................. n orm Macdonald c omox Valley...........................................................................h on. Don Mcr ae c oquitlam–b urke Mountain .....................................................Douglas h orne c oquitlam-Maillardville...............................................................

Diane Thorne c owichan Valley ................................................................................ bill r outley Delta n orth ......................................................................................Guy Gentner Delta South ...............................................................................Vicki h untington e squimalt–r oyal r oads .....................................................Maurine k aragianis f ort l angley–a ldergrove ...................................................h on. r ich c oleman f raser-n icola........................................................................................ h arry l ali Juan de f uca .....................................................................................John h organ k amloops–n orth Thompson ............................................ h on.

Dr. t erry l ake k amloops–South Thompson ...................................................... k evin k rueger k elowna–l ake c ountry ...............................................................n orm l etnick k elowna-Mission .............................................................. h on.

Steve Thomson k ootenay e ast ....................................................................................bill bennett k ootenay West ............................................................................ k atrine c onroy l angley.......................................................................................h on. Mary Polak Maple r idge–Mission .....................................................................

Marc Dalton Maple r idge–Pitt Meadows ........................................................Michael Sather n anaimo ......................................................................................... l eonard k rog n anaimo–n orth c owichan ......................................................... Doug r outley n echako l akes ..................................................................................

John r ustad n elson-creston ........................................................................Michelle Mungall n ew Westminster ..............................................................................Dawn black n orth c oast....................................................................................... Gary c oons n orth island .................................................................................. c laire t revena n orth Vancouver–l onsdale ........................................h on. n aomi Y amamoto n orth Vancouver–Seymour .................................................

Jane Thornthwaite o ak bay–Gordon h ead ............................................................ h on. ida c hong Parksville-Qualicum ..................................................................... r on c antelon Peace r iver n orth ................................................................................Pat Pimm Peace r iver South ...............................................................h on. blair l ekstrom Penticton................................................................................... h on. bill barisoff Port c oquitlam ..........................................................................Mike f arnworth Port Moody–c oquitlam ...................................................................... iain black Powell r iver–Sunshine c oast ................................................. n icholas Simons Prince George–Mackenzie .............................................................h on.

Pat bell Prince George–Valemount ...................................................h on. Shirley bond r ichmond c entre ............................................................................ r ob h oward r ichmond e ast ................................................................................... l inda r eid r ichmond-Steveston ..............................................................................John Y ap Saanich n orth and the islands .....................................................

Murray c oell Saanich South ................................................................................ l ana Popham Shuswap ...............................................................................h on.

George a bbott Skeena .............................................................................................. r obin a ustin Stikine ........................................................................................Doug Donaldson Surrey-c loverdale .................................................................h on. k evin f alcon Surrey-fleetwood ...............................................................................Jagrup brar Surrey–Green t imbers ..................................................................Sue h ammell Surrey-n ewton ................................................................................. h arry b ains Surrey-Panorama ........................................................ h on.

Stephanie c adieux Surrey-t ynehead ........................................................................... Dave S. h ayer Surrey-Whalley.............................................................................. bruce r alston Surrey–White r ock ....................................................................... Gordon h ogg Vancouver-fairview ................................................ Dr. Margaret MacDiarmid Vancouver–f alse creek ........................................................ h on.

Mary Mcn eil Vancouver-fraserview ........................................................................k ash h eed Vancouver-hastings ....................................................................Shane Simpson Vancouver-kensington .................................................................Mable e lmore Vancouver-kingsway..........................................................................a drian Dix Vancouver-l angara .................................................................Dr.

Moira Stilwell Vancouver–Mount Pleasant ..........................................Jenny Wai ching kwan Vancouver–Point Grey ......................................................... h on. c hristy c lark Vancouver-Quilchena ................................................................... c olin h ansen Vancouver–West end ...............................................Spencer c handra h erbert Vernon-Monashee ...............................................................................eric f oster Victoria–b eacon h ill .......................................................................c arole James Victoria–Swan l ake.........................................................................r ob fleming West Vancouver–capilano ............................................................. r alph Sultan West Vancouver–Sea to Sky ........................................................

Joan Mcintyre Westside-kelowna .............................................................................ben Stewart Party Standings: l iberal 49; n ew Democratic 34; independent 2

CONTENTS Thursday, June 2, 2011 Morning Sitting Page introductions by Members ..................................................................................................................................................... 7827 Point of order (Speaker's r uling) ......................................................................................................................................... 7827 introduction and first r eading of bills ................................................................................................................................ 7827 bill M215 — Senate n ominee e lection a ct J. l es bill M213 — f amily c ompensation a ct a mendment a ct, 2011 r .

Sultan bill M214 — l imitation a ct a mendment a ct, 2011 r . Sultan Orders of the Day Government Motions on notice ........................................................................................................................................... 7828 Motion 15 — a ppointment of c lerks of the l egislative a ssembly h on. r . c oleman a.

Di x J. h organ c ommittee of the Whole h ouse ............................................................................................................................................ 7831 bill 11 — Y ale first n ation final a greement a ct (continued) S. f raser h on. M. Polak b. Simpson Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room c ommittee of Supply .............................................................................................................................................................. 7839 e stimates: office of the Premier (continued) h on. c. c lark a. Dix

7827 thurSD a Y , June 2, 2011 The h ouse met at 10:03 a.m. [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] Prayers. Introductions by Members R. Sultan: i would like to introduce several guests who are in the gallery this morning, beginning with Woody h ayes, chartered accountant, past president of the institute of c hartered a ccountants of b.c. and a public policy volunteer representing the many thou - sands of accountants in our province. Glenn Martin is executive director of the c onsulting engineers of b.c., representing the thousands of con - sulting engineers in our province.

Steve fleck is a professional engineer with Stantec and incoming vice- president of the c onsulting engineers of b .c. h arlan k elly is counsellor for the a ssociation of Professional engineers and Geoscientists of british c olumbia, which enforces standards of conduct among engineers and geoscientists in our province, as well as be- ing vice-president of technology for o pus Daytonknight l td. consulting engineers. [1005] Jerome Marburg is deputy executive director and general counsel of the a rchitectural institute of british c olumbia, representing the thousands of architects in our province. finally, i'm also informed that a representative of the british c olumbia Dental a ssociation may be in the precincts, representing the thousands of dentists in our province.

These professionals have a deep interest in the legisla- tive proceedings of this h ouse. Would the h ouse please make them welcome. J. McIntyre: i may be jumping the gun a slight bit here. i have a school visit today from Myrtle Philip c ommunity School in Whistler, and i just had the pleas- ure of talking to the 27 grade 5 students and a contingent of parents who are here supporting them. i think they're about to enter, but i have duty in the little h ouse in a moment, so i just wanted to make sure that the h ouse made them feel welcome and maybe give them a little clap or a wave when they come in shortly.

Point of Order (Speaker's Ruling) Mr. Speaker: h on. Members, on W ednesday, June 1, the h ouse l eader of the official opposition rose on a point of order relating to an earlier announcement of the Government h ouse l eader concerning an alteration to the

schedule that was tabled with the time allocation motion passed by the house, relating to Standing order 81.1(2). The motion itself outlined in broad terms the bills and estimates which the government wishes to complete and dispose of on or before Thursday, June 2, at or before 5:30 p.m. The

schedule tabled with the motion outlines in some detail the time limits for completion of business contemplated in the main motion. it has been well established in all c ommonwealth jurisdictions that the arrangement of the h ouse busi - ness is the sole prerogative of the Government h ouse l eader. indeed, it's the c hair's view that the

schedule referred to is the Government h ouse l eader's plans for the timing of the unfinished business of the h ouse. a s such, the Government h ouse l eader is entitled to adjust the

schedule as necessity arises. h is power in this area is not open to question. Introduction and First Reading of Bills bill M215 — S enate no Minee election act J. l es presented a bill intituled Senate n ominee e lec- tion a ct. J. Les: i move that the act be read for a first time now. Motion approved. J. Les: The purpose of this bill is to modernize the c anadian Senate in a way that reflects the values of british c olumbians and best represents british c olumbia in the Senate of c anada. it is clear that the new federal government is…. Mr.

Speaker: Member, just a second. because of the fact it's not on the order paper, you have to ask leave. l eave not granted. bill M213 — f aMil Y c o MPenSation a ct aMenDMent a ct, 2011 r . Sultan presented a bill intituled f amily c ompensa- tion a ct a mendment a ct, 2011. R. Sultan: i move that the bill be read a first time now. Motion approved. R. Sultan: The f amily c ompensation a ct a mendment a ct would permit the court to award damages up to

british c olumbia Debates7828 t hursday, June 2, 2011 specified limits for grief and loss of guidance, care and companionship to spouses of deceased persons as well as parents and children. c uriously, if you suffer from the wrongful death of your spouse or child, the law per - mits courts to grant you damages for the financial loss you have incurred. What potentially is your compensa - tion for the loss of your spouse, beyond the nickels and dimes? n othing. it is not allowed.

This amendment is inspired by the unfortunate plight of my friend Dale, who lost her husband, r uss, apparently through a prescription error. What was her recourse for this tragedy? n one, because her income from retired engineer r uss and her own pension was unaffected, and for Dale, financially, life went on as be - fore. but for Dale after loss of her lifelong companion, life certainly did not go on as before.

This amendment is a carbon copy of the statute cur - rently on the books in a lberta granting the potential for the court to grant awards, within limits, for those who have suffered the tragedy of wrongful death.

The f amily c ompensation a ct a mendment a ct is consistent with the families-first agenda of this government. i move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the h ouse after today. bill M213, f amily c ompensation a ct a mendment a ct, 2011, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the h ouse after today. [1010] bill M214 — liMitation a ct aMenDMent a ct, 2011 r . Sultan presented a bill intituled l imitation a ct a mendment a ct, 2011. R.

Sultan: i move that the bill be read a first time now. Motion approved. R. Sultan: The l imitation a ct a mendment a ct would create an ultimate limitation period of ten years with respect to the occupations of licensed professional engineer or geoscientist, professional architect, licensed dentist or licensed accountant. t oday the civil liability of highly trained persons working in these professions extends 30 years beyond discovery of the alleged fault. What are some of the consequences?

Dentists around town must find storage space for all those X-rays and plaster casts for 30 years, since recently a dentist hereabouts was sued for a worn crown 17 years old. e ngineers routinely skip having liabil- ity insurance at all, for fear it will merely attract litigation, and besides, it's too expensive.

The engineering equivalent of unsafe sex, i would say. a ccountants fear the loss of their homes and even their rrSPs, as appears to be hap - pening in a current very high-profile case back east. a rchitects find litigants' reach extends beyond the grave, as experienced by my own assistant as she fought both lawsuits and her own cancer in years of effort to settle her architect husband's estate. Government in its wisdom provides only six years of opportunity to find fault with doctors and its own hospital system — six years versus 30 years.

This amend - ment will come closer to balancing that hugely lopsided statute. i move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the h ouse after today. bill M214, l imitation a ct a mendment a ct, 2011, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sit - ting of the h ouse after today. Orders of the Day Hon. R. Coleman: in this h ouse i call, first of all, Motion 15, and then followed by that will be committee stage of the Y ale treaty, bill 11. in

Section a we will con - tinue the estimates of the office of the Premier. Government Motions on Notice Motion 15 — a PPoint Ment of clerkS of the leGiS latiVe a SSeMbl Y Hon. R. Coleman: it is my pleasure today to move Motion 15 standing in my name on the order paper. The motion reads as follows: [be it resolved that Mr. Craig James is hereby appointed c lerk of the l egislative a ssembly; vice, Mr. E. George MacMinn, o .b.c ., Q.c., as and from September 1, 2011, and that Mr. E.

George MacMinn, o .b.c., Q.c., is hereby appointed as c lerk c onsult- ant as and from September 1, 2011, for a term of twenty-four (24) months and that during that term shall, for all purposes, be deemed to be an officer of the l egislative assembly. a nd further that Ms. Kate Ryan-Lloyd be appointed Deputy c lerk of the l egislative a ssembly and c hief c ommittee c lerk as and from September 1, 2011.] l egislative c lerks play a vital role in the democratic process. They're consummate professionals who lend their wisdom and knowledge to those of us elected to do the people's work.

Without the guidance and support of such dedicated individuals, our job and indeed your job, Mr. Speaker, would be impossible. The three c lerks named in this motion uphold and exem- plify the very best traditions of their chosen career. c lerks across the c ommonwealth, including here in c anada, are appointed by succession. They become known and re - spected in the jurisdiction where they serve and so move up the hierarchy within the particular l egislature.

british c olumbia Debatest hursday, June 2, 2011 7829 This is very much the case with today's appointments, which uphold this longstanding practice. These three c lerks have a cumulative experience of over 95 years, a recognized record in the c ommonwealth. [1015] british c olumbia is privileged indeed to have such distinguished practitioners watching over this assembly. i know all members of the h ouse will be wholeheartedly in support of this significant motion, or they should be. A.

Dix: it's with more sadness than anger that i rise today to speak on this motion because of the utmost re - spect that i have for the c lerk of the h ouse, Mr. MacMinn, whom i've worked with for more than 20 years, my re - spect for Ms. r yan-l loyd and my respect for Mr. James. but what we have here is an example of a government that is arrogant and doesn't respect the l egislative a ssembly of british c olumbia. That's what we have here. l ess than a week ago i was contacted and a discus - sion was entered into as to whether Mr. James would be appointed as c lerk of the l egislature.

What i said is what everybody working for a non-profit has to go through and most people working in government have to go through — that i thought that Mr. James would be a leading candidate for the job, but i thought there'd be an open competition. i thought posting a job in secret and filling a job in secret wasn't appropriate and that the job of assessing the candidates and making a recommendation should go to the l egislative a ssembly Management c ommittee, a perfectly reasonable approach to this. n ow, the office of the c lerk is a non-partisan office of the l egislature.

We have a tradition in our l egislature of independent officers of the h ouse which are, of course, appointed by unanimous vote of a special committee that's adopted by the h ouse. That's our tradition. in recent times we have a government that has disre - spected that tradition. We had an a uditor General for a year who was appointed by the government members on the committee. We've had a c hief e lectoral officer — again, in that case, Mr. James — appointed by the gov - ernment side as an interim.

Those processes are simply disrespected in this h ouse by a government which wants to appoint everything. e ven in fields where they don't have the right to do so, they continue to do so. it's ten years in power, and it's the arrogance that comes with ten years in power that's being expressed here today in a fundamental way. We are talking about a job which has been filled by someone who is recognized throughout the c ommonwealth, indeed in legislative jurisdictions everywhere, as an expert.

We are not allowing people in british c olumbia to have a right to apply for that job, people in c anada to have a right to apply for the job or even to know that it happens. This is what the motion implies. The fact of the matter is that the c lerk of the h ouse is supposed to be non-partisan. it's supposed to be a non- partisan office.

That reflects, surely, that there should be some agreement between the members of this h ouse. n ot just the government members and the opposition members but all of the members of the h ouse should be involved in the decision to appoint a c lerk of the h ouse in some fashion, because it's a non-partisan office. it diminishes the office of the c lerk to do what the government is doing today, to make it an appointment by a government majority decided by a government ma- jority. That is what they are doing. it is simply wrong, and it has consequences. The minister talks about a job that's appointed by suc- cession.

There is not a non-profit organization in british c olumbia that would agree with that approach. l et's face it. This decision was made by one person, the Premier of british c olumbia, who decided to bring this motion for- ward, put it on the order paper without informing the opposition and then to put it forward. They are diminishing this l egislature. They are dimin- ishing its independence. They're diminishing the office of the Speaker. They're diminishing the office of the c lerk. it is not acceptable.

That is why the opposition will be voting against this motion, because it is disre - spectful of the very legislative institutions that we are all sworn to uphold. n ow, what does it do in effect? it says that this l egislature is supporting some sort of divine right, the divine right of the Premier to make decisions about non- partisan offices.

That's what's involved here. [1020] Government bringing this forward without consulta - tion of the opposition is totally, totally in contravention of the spirit of previous decisions, including the deci - sions made the last time a c lerk was appointed in this h ouse, when all sides in the h ouse agreed with that decision. What the opposition is proposing is a reasonable process so that these positions be posted, so that the ex - cellent candidates…. c ertainly, Mr.

James is an excellent candidate — they're all certainly excellent candidates — and would be a leading candidate for the job. but others might want to apply for a job here in this beautiful city of Victoria that has a salary of $250,000 a year. Surely we would also get other applicants — and that this l egislature assess those applicants and makes the best choice for the people of british c olumbia…. e very non-profit in b.c., most cor - porations in b.c. and every government agency in b.c. operates on that standard, and the l egislative a ssembly of british c olumbia should operate on that standard as well.

So it is with great sadness that we oppose this mo - tion. We felt and i felt that what had been put forward by the opposition was reasonable. it was not listened to.

british c olumbia Debates7830 t hursday, June 2, 2011 We made it perfectly clear that we did not support this action, that this was a decision by the government to appoint — sadly, just on its side — its choice in this pos - ition, something that they have the majority to impose in this h ouse, but they do not have the moral right to impose. We made our position clear about process, and the government chose to completely ignore it. n ot only that, they simply ignored it by tabling this motion in the l egislature. c an you believe it, hon. Speaker? What disrespect for the institutions of the l egislature.

This is the arrogance that comes when you've had a majority of 77 to two to start with. Y ou make all the decisions. This is the arrogance that a new Premier is taking to demo - cratic institutions in this province, and i don't think people agree with it. i think most people in b.c. would say that if you're go- ing to fill this job, you should let people know the job is available, and you should give people the right to apply for it.

Then we'll see what comes. instead, we have a very different approach, a backroom approach, an approach that's not respectful of the non-partisan nature of the role of the c lerk and not respectful of the l egislature. on behalf of the official opposition, my colleague the member for Juan de f uca will be talking about some of the other precedents, some of the other institutions be - cause these, of course, are always evolving institutions. We will be responding to the assertion by the Government h ouse l eader that this is a question of succession.

The o pposition h ouse l eader will be responding to that. i must say this is an unfortunate day, a day of disre - spect by the government for this l egislature, a sad day for this l egislature. The opposition will be opposing this motion in spite of the high regard with which we hold all three of the c lerks named in the motion. J.

Horgan: i rise as well, following the l eader of the o pposition, out of sadness more than anything else. one of the proudest moments of my life was taking my place in this institution. i started working in politics in the h ouse of c ommons, and i saw Stanley k nowles, 44 years as a member of that institution, appointed by the h ouse of c ommons as an honorary c lerk. h e sat at the table for the remaining years of his life, watching the ac- tivities of parliament that he had enjoyed and respected for almost half a century. t o come here today as a rather rough-hewn fellow from the west coast of Vancouver island…. i do so with deference to the institution. i do so with deference to the t able officers. i do so with deference to the Speaker and also to the Government h ouse l eader.

When i was ap - pointed the official opposition h ouse l eader, i felt that it was an opportunity for me to dig even more deeply into the traditions of this institution to find out where the Druids had buried the sacred runes that we were to talk about. Members will know that the first c lerk of any parliament was appointed in 1363 because most parliamentarians were illiterate.

The function of the c lerk was to read the titles of the bills and the contents of the bills so that all members could have an understanding of what they were doing. in fact, today at five o'clock the c lerk will stand in the corner and read the bills to all members in this place. it's a tradition that's been going on for a long, long, long, long time. it's not that i want to disrespect tradition. i'm a his - torian; i like old stuff. i value and respect the things that have happened before us, but i am also a creature of the 21st century as all members in this place are, as all of our constituents are. [1025] i've got to tell you, and i've got to tell other mem - bers, that when i go back to my constituency and say that on the last day, without any notice beyond 24 hours, when we know we are going to be rising potentially be - fore an election, potentially not coming back here until next f ebruary…. i have to go back and say i participated in handing a $250,000-a-year job for life to somebody without due process. i don't believe i can do that in good conscience, despite the respect i have for Mr.

James, de- spite the enormous respect i have for Ms. r yan-l loyd. i don't believe that in the 21st century, with an insti - tution that has a Merit c ommissioner for every other appointment in government beyond those made by the Premier, we can in good conscience accept without any discussion that the only person for the job is someone who has recently been appointed without consultation to be the c hief e lectoral officer of b ritish c olumbia.

The Government h ouse l eader made reference to the tradition of succession, and that may well be the trad - ition here in british c olumbia. it's been a long time since we've replaced the c lerk. in other jurisdictions in the c ommonwealth, like South a ustralia, for example, pos- itions are posted, notices of vacancies are published, and open competitions take place.

Similarly, in Queensland, Victoria, the positions are advertised more widely than public service notices in major daily newspapers to include on-line job sites in the case of more senior va - cancies, and they're distributed to other a ustralasian parliaments and parliaments around the world. i would think, being a lifetime resident of southern Vancouver island, that if we posted internationally for a quarter-million-dollar-a-year job in Victoria, we would get some pretty good applicants. That's not to say that Mr.

James would not be a leading candidate for that pos- ition. but the notion that on the last day, with 24 hours' notice, we are going to pass the succession on to another individual without an open competition is anathema in the 21st century. My constituents are not likely going to be happy about it, and i would suggest that constitu - ents of members on both sides of the h ouse will feel the same way.

british c olumbia Debatest hursday, June 2, 2011 7831 i have a long inventory. The h ouse of c ommons re- cently…. Many, many more c lerks, of course, with more activities going on there than we have in this l egislature. They have a process of annually holding competitions to bring new c lerks into the system where they can move around and be promoted as required, but ultimately, competitive processes are the order of the day. The opposition leader spoke about non-profits within government. Ministers of the crown will know this. Deputy ministers can't spend $25,000 without an open process.

Why in the world would we as legislators in the 21st century defer to succession on such an import - ant position that must be a non-partisan position? The c lerk of the l egislature must have the confidence of every single member. i'm not suggesting that Mr. James does not have that, but surely to goodness we should have had more of a discussion about this transition than we've had to this point in time. The official opposition leader made it quite clear that there was an option. We have a legislative management committee of this place, which i am now a member of. We've had a couple of meetings.

We can deal with im - portant matters such as finding a process to lead to a succession from the current c lerk to the next c lerk. i do not believe we had to do it the way it's been done. i do not believe this does anything to elevate this insti- tution. in fact, we will be mocked and ridiculed by those in my constituency for the way this has been handled, not because of the individuals, not because of the position, but because in everyone else's daily lives the notion of being given a job because you're there is just not on. it doesn't happen at the 7-e leven. it doesn't happen in the mill. it doesn't happen in the public service of british c olumbia. o pen process, hon.

Speaker. The list goes on and on. it's not just a ustralia, it's not just n ova Scotia, it's not just n ewfoundland, it's not just n ew Zealand, it's not just Manitoba, and it's not just the Quebec n ational a ssembly. There are dozens of examples listed in the journal of the Society of c lerks-at-the-t able in british c ommonwealth Parliaments, volume 76. This happens all the time. in the 21st century i think it's appropriate that we change our institutions so that they reflect the values of the people we represent.

What we're doing today is wrong, and the official opposition is going to oppose it — sadly, not with anger. [1030-1035] Motion approved on the following division: Yea S — 47 r ustad Mcintyre Thomson l ekstrom bell Yamamoto Mcn eil c hong l ake Polak Mcr ae i. b lack c oell h awes k rueger l etnick Sultan barnett l ee Dalton h eed c adieux Penner bloy c oleman c lark f alcon bond de Jong abbott h ansen MacDiarmid Yap Stilwell h ayer c antelon l es Pimm h ogg h oward Stewart f oster van Dongen horne bennett Thornthwaite Slater na YS — 31 S.

Simpson D. black fleming James kwan r alston Popham a ustin k aragianis brar h ammell l ali Thorne D. r outley h organ bains Dix Mungall chouhan Macdonald c handra h erbert k rog Simons e lmore Donaldson f raser b. r outley c onroy h untington c oons Sather Hon. R. Coleman: i call committee stage on bill 11 in this h ouse, and we will now start the estimates of the of- fice of the Premier in c ommittee a. Committee of the Whole House bi ll 11 — Yale f ir St n ation final a GreeMent act (continued) The h ouse in c ommittee of the Whole (Section

b) on bill 11; D. black in the chair. The committee met at 10:39 a.m. on

section 1 (continued). J. Brar: i seek leave to make an introduction. The Chair: Please proceed. Introductions by Members J. Brar: Visiting us today is the future of this beautiful province of british c olumbia. They are 45 students from

british c olumbia Debates7832 t hursday, June 2, 2011 Green t imbers e lementary School in Surrey. They are accompanied by their teachers Ms. Wendy k aland, Mrs. r omano, Mrs. Dhaliwal and a group of their parents. So i would ask the members from both sides of the h ouse to please make them feel welcome. Debate Continued S. Fraser: i'm glad to take my spot back in the debate of this second reading of the Y ale treaty.

That's bill 11. [1040] Where we left off yesterday, i had asked the question of the minister and her staff, on a definition that was absent in the "Definitions" section, and i asked for an explanation. That's the f rozen l akes land. i think that's where we were at yesterday. i didn't get the answer, be - cause we rose at the end of our time limit allotted for yesterday. i don't know if i need to redo the question, or if we can just…. So f rozen l akes land is not in the

definitions, yet it is a…. it is in the

definitions, but unlike the f ive Mile fishery, the f rozen l akes land has no mention of Stó:lô, and Stó:lô, of course, have claimed significant historic precedent of use of that land, family use of that land. i'd like some explanation for how that's to be recon - ciled in what should be a treaty process that is about reconciliation. Hon. M. Polak: once again, before i begin, i'll just introduce the staff who are here with me today.

We have to my left, Mark l ofthouse, our chief negotiator; to my right, my deputy minister, Steve Munro; and we have Jeff l oenen from the Ministry of a ttorney General, our legal counsel. t o the member's question, Stó:lô are not specifically mentioned because this is a provision that is inclusive of everyone, be it the public or Stó:lô. S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister. i do want to just as we begin this session today…. We're dealing with committee stage of bill 11, and i think coming to a close on

section 1. it is important to reflect that this is an essential part, this committee stage, where we can go through the 70 sections of bill 11, the Y ale treaty. it is the first opportunity we will have in this h ouse, whether it's government members or opposition mem - bers or independent members, to go through the treaty and what it means. on behalf of all interested parties, it allows us that opportunity to hopefully, in theory, bring comfort to and answers to questions that have been maybe left hanging for other first n ations, for british c olumbians and for members on both sides of the house.

So i just wanted to reflect that this is an important part of that process, especially since there has been no em - powering of the standing committee to involve members of the h ouse other than maybe government members, although i don't believe government members have had much involvement or any involvement in this too.

This is a good process to be in, and i know people are watching this who are hoping for answers to ques - tions, certainly, that have been given to members of this h ouse to ask in this process, in the committee stage. i don't need to tell the minister or her staff about that, but i just wanted to reflect on that for anyone watching. With that, i will sit down on

section 1. i don't have any more questions. i could have many more questions, but i'm mindful of our very, very limited time here. i will sit down on

section

Section 1 approved. on

section 2. [1045] S. Fraser:

Section 2 is: "The Y ale first n ation final a greement is a treaty and a land claims agreement within the meaning of sections 25 and 35 of the c onstitution a ct, 1982." So we're getting into

section 35 constitu - tional issues here. i guess the question i have…. There is an interpret - ation here that sections of this act are challengeable constitutionally — probably under

section 35, i would submit. c ertainly, Stó:lô, i think, believe that their rights are being infringed on, if not extinguished in certain cases of access. i'm not saying that's true or not true, but i'm just asking the minister: how does she reconcile

section 2 as far as it is about protecting aboriginal rights? While it may do so for the Y ale first n ation, it may also be tak- ing away rights from the Stó:lô. Hon. M. Polak: This treaty is about Y ale's

section 35 rights. it does not affect the

section 35 rights of any other first n ation, including Stó:lô. That is, in fact, one of the reasons that there is a non-derogation clause in the treaty. i would also direct the member to sections 26.8 and 27.1, which deal with the manner in which minor amendments and major amendments can be made, should there be any implication of another first n ation's

section 35 rights. S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. i'm famil - iar. She educated me on those sections yesterday a bit, so thank you for that. i have a letter from Stó:lô t ribal c ouncil, and i'll do a quote here. This is around what they see as…. if the Y ale agreement becomes law, their ability to continue exer - cising age-old fishing rights at the five Mile fishery will be infringed.

british c olumbia Debatest hursday, June 2, 2011 7833 h ere's a quote: "We have made every effort to resolve the issue with b.c. and c anada." i'll divert from the quote for a moment. it has been made clear to me by Stó:lô…. Whether it's the nation council or tribal council, both have indicated that their concerns here are around their dealings with govern - ment and not with the Y ale people. This is directed, i believe, in that regard.

"We have provided them" — this is government, b.c. and c an- ada — "with all the evidence required to prove that the f ive Mile fishery is a collective Stó:lô fishery that does not belong to Y ale or any single community, and we have sought negotiations towards a solution that would protect our rights, while allowing Y ale to conclude its treaty. h owever, to date, both governments have failed to engage us." [1050] i guess with that perspective, would not the minister agree that along with that would go a perspective that the province certainly hasn't played a role in protecting the

section 35 rights of the Stó:lô people in this regard? Hon. M. Polak: t o begin with, let's remember that with respect to reserve land where there is no treaty, on the status of the land currently — because, of course, the treaty has not been fully put in place — the Y ale have complete control over access to that land. There are no access provisions that would permit the Stó:lô to access the river through those lands currently, and in fact the areas of access that are of controversy are those lands, primarily, that were reserve lands, or are reserve lands, prior to the treaty. The addition of the access provision that is included in the treaty arguably ensures that Stó:lô have access,

whereas currently they do not have guaranteed access through those lands. The five Mile fishery is not im - pacted in any way by this treaty. The treaty does not give ownership of the five Mile fishery to the Y ale. in fact, the treaty only deals with land. it does not deal with any- thing on the river. a ccess to the river, of course, is not only assured through the access provisions in the treaty, but also there is additional access outside of the treaty settlement lands to the areas that would be entered into in order to fish.

With respect to the Stó:lô's contention that we have not continued to work with them and attempt to reach an agree- ment, not only do we commit to continuing to work with them, but i can advise the member that we met beginning on July 11 of 2008 and continuing very, very regularly — i won't read the entire list of meetings, but i would be happy to provide them to the member with respect to meetings, correspondence, etc. — all the way through those years and, of course, most recently this past week, when i met personally with the Stó:lô with my deputy. S.

Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that, and i would actually appreciate that list. i don't need it now but at the end of the session, if you could make that available. i guess we're getting two sides of this. The Stó:lô t ribal c ouncil says their concern is that if the agreement as it's written is brought into force in its current form, it will alienate and infringe Stó:lô fishing rights to a traditional fishery known as the five Mile fishery.

The discussions do not seem to have borne fruit so far in addressing those concerns, which is unfortunate at this point. [1055] a lso, i have heard claims that there were identified and documented 86 fishing sites in the canyon in total and that four — which, i think, no one argues are Y ale's — that remain on crown land were not identified in the land selection. is that correct? Do the four sites, identi - fied Y ale sites, remain on crown land? They were not part of the settlement? Hon. M.

Polak: i think i understood the member's question. if not, we'll try this again. indeed, all the reserve lands are what we transfer first into treaty settle- ment lands. So all the reserve lands of Y ale have become treaty settlement lands, with the addition of crown land. S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that clarification. i know that one of the concerns the Stó:lô put forward to me was that of the 86 documented sites that were identi- fied, they see that 41 of those sites are directly affected, potentially, by the treaty negatively for them. a gain, we've gone back and forth on this.

There are issues around permitting that would certainly, if they're established — certainly as far as the Stó:lô are concerned — be seen as an infringement of Stó:lô rights if they are required after…. The minister has mentioned that there's family history on a lot of these sites. There are drying racks. There are access issues. They're real and historic for Stó:lô — and for Y ale. i don't mean this with any disrespect to Y ale. My questions are directed at the crown here and the province of british c olumbia.

Those access issues, if they are entrenched in treaty through a permission to be obtained and permitting process that doesn't specif - ically define Stó:lô's rights…. Doesn't the minister see that that would be perceived at least, rightly or wrongly, as a stripping of access rights, of a restricting of those rights? The canyon and the fisheries are, i think, the crux of the main part of the issue — the conflict, if you will, on the territories. Hon. M.

Polak: first, just to reiterate that the treaty has no impact whatsoever on the five Mile fishery or, in fact, on anyone's rights to fish. it deals only with the land. a gain, the reserve land, as it functions right now, gives the c hief absolutely full rights to control access to those lands. in fact, there are trespass laws in place that relate

british c olumbia Debates7834 t hursday, June 2, 2011 to reserve lands that give the c hief unilateral rights to block Stó:lô in terms of their access to that fishery. [1100] a gain, it is certainly the access provisions within the treaty that improve the ability for Stó:lô to be able to ac- cess areas such as the five Mile fishery. Without those access provisions in the treaty, they do not in fact have unfettered access. The c hief of the Y ale, in managing his reserves, has unilateral rights to block that access. in addition to that, as we've canvassed here, the Y ale treaty, and any treaty….

This treaty cannot impact on Stó:lô's rights because of the non-derogation clause. We certainly hope that as we continue to speak with Stó:lô and continue to dialogue with them, we will be able to put in place an agreement that satisfies their de - sire to maintain their traditional fishing and traditional activities on the land in concert with the Y ale treaty implementation. S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. it is our hope, too, that these issues will be remedied. c ertainly i recognize the difficulty, and i recognize the good work that the treaty negotiators do.

So i appreciate that. i know that they span politics also. They're doing the job as laid out through the t reaty c ommission. a gain, i thank them for that. i don't believe there are any Stó:lô t ribal c ouncil members in the treaty process. but Stó:lô n ation council bands — i think seven; is it seven or nine? — are actually in the treaty process. a m i correct? Perhaps you could clarify: is it seven or nine? The Chair: The member for Surrey-fleetwood seeks leave. Introductions by Members J.

Brar: i seek leave again to make an introduction. e arlier i introduced a group of students from Green t imbers e lementary School in Surrey. n ow we have the second group of grade 5 students from the same beauti - ful school. They are accompanied by their teachers, which include Miss Wendy k aland, Mrs. r omano and Mrs. Dhaliwal, and by their parents. i would ask both sides to please make them feel welcome. Debate Continued Hon. M. Polak: The member is correct that none of the Stó:lô who are part of the tribal council are in - volved in active treaty negotiations.

There are seven within the treaty association who are part of active treaty negotiations. S. Fraser: Thanks for that clarification. i don't know why i have a hard time grasping whether it was seven or nine. So of the 29 Stó:lô bands, between the Stó:lô n ation council and the Stó:lô t ribal c ouncil, seven in the nation council are in the treaty process. So they will also be seeking, under

section 35, constitutional rights. i'm hoping they will be successful too. i also recognize that those not in the treaty process certainly have no less rights. i recognize that members of the u nion of b.c. indian c hiefs have a different take and do not agree with the treaty process, and i respect that also. The minister is nodding here.

We must be mindful that the treaty itself is not a panacea. a s we see this unfold with seven Stó:lô actually in the treaty pro - cess…. i'm not sure what level they are — not level 5, certainly; not stage 5. if the minister could just clarify that. [1105] Where i'm going, just so she knows…. i'm just try - ing to clarify: as claims for historic territorial use come forward from more of the Stó:lô nations in the treaty pro- cess, i'm wondering if the decisions made here around access and land and territory have been reflected in the larger picture as the further treaty process unfolds. Hon. M.

Polak: i hope this helps to clarify things for the member. a ll seven of those Stó:lô bands are at stage 4, negoti - ating an agreement-in-principle. The area referred to as the Y ale first n ations area is the larger piece of land that surrounds the treaty settlement lands. o therwise you would think of that as the statement-of-intent lands. it corresponds fairly well. [l.r eid in the chair.] The Y ale have non-exclusive rights to hunting and fish- ing and other activities on those lands. There's nothing that prevents us from locating future treaty settlement lands for Stó:lô within that area. S.

Fraser: i recognize, and i don't want to take too long on this…. but it is helpful, as we're dealing with the constitutional issues here. These overlaps, if they're oversubscribed, could cause future constitutional prob - lems. So they certainly need to be averted. i guess just another question around this.

Those seven Stó:lô nations that are in stage 4 now — my understand - ing is that they have significant concerns. it's all 29 Stó:lô that are united in their concerns around access, historic use and such — you know, in their opinion, at least. a m i correct that that includes the seven bands within the treaty process at stage 4 right now? Hon. M. Polak: Y es, that's correct. S. Fraser: in the schedule,

section 2.12.1 says: "n othing in this a greement…recognizes or provides any

british c olumbia Debatest hursday, June 2, 2011 7835 rights under

section 35 of the c onstitution a ct, 1982 for any aboriginal people other than Y ale first n ation." n ow, the minister, i think, explained this well yesterday. This is the Y ale treaty. So that's certainly the rationale for only citing the Y ale first n ation in the treaty and no other nation. i accept that. but the next section: "i f a superior court of a prov - ince, the f ederal c ourt of c anada or the Supreme c ourt of c anada finally determines that any aboriginal people, other than Y ale first n ation, has a right under

section 35 of the c onstitution a ct, 1982 that is adversely affected by a provision of this a greement" — which arguably is the situation that the Stó:lô are claiming…. [1110] Then, "a. that provision will operate and have effect to the extent it does not adversely affect that right; and b. if the provision cannot operate and have effect in a way that it does not adversely affect that right, the Parties will make best efforts to amend this a greement to rem- edy or replace that provision." n ow, i see there's legal wording here, so i'm glad there's a legal representative. i have a hard time with how these are worded.

Y ou know, as a layperson looking at this, am i correct in saying that the significant issues that are outstanding as far as the Stó:lô are concerned, based on

section 2.12.2…? if they are correct in part or in total, and it leads to any kind of a court challenge or constitutional chal - lenge, would that take this right back to an amendment stage? The minister clarified yesterday that amendment would have to go right back to all three parties in the Y ale agreement. am i correct in that

interpretation? Hon. M. Polak: c ertainly, we expect that we will be successful in negotiating a satisfactory agreement with the Stó:lô and with the Y ale, with respect to access and with respect to ensuring that their rights are respected. The

section that the member has referred to is the non- derogation clause that is common to all treaties. of course, we believe that affords us the opportunity to deal with overlap issues in a way that doesn't take us to litiga- tion. n evertheless, that provision is there. Should there be a case where we end up having to go to an amendment, it would go back to all parties. That again is described in

section 27 in the amendment chapter. S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that clarification. i guess four parties, then, would be involved in that. if there was potential litigation, a court challenge — from, say, for instance, the Stó:lô — and they were successful in that court challenge, then somehow that would have to be negotiated, or renegotiated, between the govern - ment of c anada, the government of british c olumbia and, certainly, the Y ale first n ation. Then the Stó:lô would be part of that negotiation and/or discussion. Whether it's at the same table or not, i'm not sure.

Just for clarification, is that how that would unfold? [1115] Hon. M. Polak: of course, we always have an obli - gation to consult with Stó:lô, as we have an obligation to consult with any first n ations who would be af - fected by a treaty. n evertheless, were the Y ale treaty to be amended in the manner in which the member has outlined, it would not involve the Stó:lô. The Stó:lô are not one of the three parties to the agreement, nor would they be with an amendment.

The Stó:lô would, again, be consulted, as they are whenever another treaty is made. but the discussion and negotiation that would accomplish amending the treaty would be a further negotiation between the three par - ties to the Y ale treaty — c anada, british c olumbia and the Y ale. S.

Fraser: Thanks to the minister for this, and thanks for allowing me some.… it is complicated — these issues, how they play, and the potential for things happening that maybe were unforeseen by me, but i'm sure were foreseen by your negotiators and your staff. i appreciate very much the clarifications here. i very much appreciate the 17 years of work that the Y ale took trying to sift through this stuff. i find it very difficult, and i know that the negotiators have been a big help in that regard, and i applaud them for that. i also applaud the Y ale first nation. being mindful of that, and that the time that we have allocated is limited, i will put in another bid. it would really be helpful, self-serving though it might be, but i am the critic for the opposition…. it sure would be help- ful if the minister would consider discussing with the Premier utilizing the Standing c ommittee on a boriginal a ffairs, because it would make this process a lot easier, i think. it would certainly help clarify, and help remedy things and conflicts before they get to this stage, because cer - tainly, if we ever did get to the point where this becomes a constitutional challenge and it requires amendments, the complexity of changing these things and getting agreements becomes even more difficult, not less. i think it's better to deal with these things early on, and i suggest that the tool of the Standing c ommittee on a boriginal a ffairs is one that could be useful to all members of this h ouse and to the people of british c olumbia and, certainly in this case, both the Y ale first n ation and the Stó:lô first n ation. on

section 2 now, i will not go any further, although i have a lot more. i will sit down. B. Simpson:

Section 2 of the treaty is kind of the omnibus statement that is inclusive of the final agree - ment. because of truncated debate, and because the

british c olumbia Debates7836 t hursday, June 2, 2011 minister has already taken some latitude to go to other clauses, i do want to approach this in that fashion. a gain, i want to start my comments off with respect for the Y ale and respect for the work of the b.c . t reaty c ommission.

This is not about the Y ale exercising their right to self-declare and to arrive at a treaty with the provincial government. it's a process issue, and it's about whether or not the redress of the Y ales' concerns causes an injustice for another f irst n ation, which the government also has an obligation to address concerns with as well. a s the opposition member pointed out, some of the Stó:lô are involved in the treaty process, and there are legitimate questions as to what getting an early treaty does to the opportunity for a later treaty over the same territory.

The questions, i believe, are legitimate, and again, just an iteration, because the opposition critic had pointed to the committee…. i did again get confirmation from c hief Joseph h all that his preference would be along the lines of the hoist, and i'll get into an argument that he's posed to me for that. [1120] h owever, i want to go back a little bit to last night's debate, because that's the luxury of having an overnight.

Y ou get an opportunity to think about ministers' re - sponses and then reflect on them and get some help to understand them, because this is a complex issue. i asked a question yesterday about…. The rea - son for the question is that it's where all of this really starts, and that's the statement of intent, the first stage of treaty. in that statement of intent, the way the b.c. t reaty c ommission process is supposed to work, is also supposed to be a letter or a declaration of overlapping claims. My question to the minister…. The minister did come back later and say it's 100 percent overlap.

Therefore, there wasn't either an exemp- tion agreement or an agreement of resource-sharing or whatever to drive the rest of the treaty process. but the minister answered that it's not the provincial govern - ment's responsibility to interfere with the b.c. t reaty c ommission process. i want to ask…. The b.c. t reaty c ommission is not the negotiator, as i understand it. The negotiators at the table are c anada, british c olumbia and, in this case, the Y ale first nation.

So what is the way, then…? t o say that the b.c. t reaty c ommission is the one that gets those documents and, therefore, it would be interfering with the process to go and look at those documents, suggests to me a misunderstanding of how the process works, because all the t reaty c ommission does is convene the table and make sure the process is followed through, as i understand it. The documents are actually given to the provincial government and the c anadian government as part of the process. i wonder if the minister could just address that.

Do documents tabled with the b.c. t reaty c ommission, tabled at the treaty table, actually come to the province of british c olumbia and their negotiators when they are tabled with the b.c. t reaty c ommission? Hon. M. Polak: first to the critic, who was finishing off his comments, just to say that i appreciate his com - ments with respect to the standing committee, and i will certainly convey to the Premier the member's interest in the operation of the Select Standing c ommittee on a boriginal a ffairs.

Just to make one comment with respect to the mem - ber's lead comments. it's important to note, as we've canvassed earlier, that nothing prevents the Stó:lô from having treaty settlement lands taken within the Y ale first n ation area, that broader statement of intent area. it's important to note that. in terms of the operation of the b.c. t reaty c ommission, it is the b.c. t reaty c ommission who re- ceives the statement of intent. They are the ones who review that. They are the ones who make the decision that the first n ation is ready to negotiate as an in - dependent first n ation.

We do not review that decision. We do not comment in the positive or negative about that decision. They are independent, and it is their deci- sion to make. [1125] When we then enter into negotiations, we certainly consult with all the nations surrounding the treaty area under discussion. That includes, of course, discussion of overlap issues. t ypically, we would look to each of the first n ations involved in that consultation to pro - vide us with the areas of their asserted territories.

We then proceed to negotiate and consult, including issues of overlap. but the initial decision as to whether or not a first n ation is ready to negotiate, and their statement of in - tent and the review and decision on that, is the b.c. t reaty c ommission's alone. We don't review that deci - sion, nor do we second-guess it. B. Simpson: i didn't actually ask if the government was second-guessing the commission. i understand the nature of the commission. My question was about the documents. a re the docu- ments provided to the parties?

Did the province of british c olumbia receive both the letter of intent and any associated documentation with respect to overlap - ping claims? Hon. M. Polak: c hances are that the agreements we then end up reviewing, through negotiations with the various first n ations…. c hances are those documents have also been part of what's gone to the b.c. t reaty c ommission. n evertheless, there's no formal process whereby, when the t reaty c ommission makes its decision, they

british c olumbia Debatest hursday, June 2, 2011 7837 then turn over, say, the case that was made to them to the negotiators. The nature of the documents being what it is, chances are that in the course of the many years of negotiations, once the statement of intent is approved by the t reaty c ommission, chances are that the same docu- ments are being reviewed by our negotiators. B.

Simpson: i would hope, given that it's a negotiation, that the negotiators would be looking at the documents that are the material of the negotiation. o therwise, that seems like a pretty bizarre negotiation process. h opefully, the chances are very real and did actually happen. So let me move on, on this. a gain, the minister re - sponded yesterday in this case that the reason for not having an exclusionary agreement or an agreement of shared area is because of the 100 percent overlap.

So we have a claim to title, as i understand it, by Stó:lô, and those coming into treaty and those outside the treaty process, and Y ale, which claim that they have title to the same area. in the case of that 100 percent overlap, it begs the question, then: does the first first n ation to get into the treaty process get priority to then, in the case of the Stó:lô — and the opposition critic has raised it — extin - guish the rights of other first n ations? effectively, is the treaty process, then, a first-past-the-post system? [1130] Hon. M.

Polak: With respect to the first point, we were closing off discussing about b.c. t reaty c ommission — and just to give the member some assurance. in the course of negotiations, in fact, it's likely that we have re- viewed far more extensive documentation than the b.c. t reaty c ommission would have reviewed in their in - itial decision.

So certainly, there's extensive review of all documentation that we have access to. in terms of the treaty settlement lands and this idea that the first first n ation to achieve a treaty would somehow be in a better position than subsequent treaty- making first n ations, the treaty settlement lands are mainly based on where you would find existing reserves.

So we look at core traditional territory of the Y ale, and we look at that in relation to the surrounding first n ations and what their core territory might be. f or example, the core territory of Y ale and, indeed, the treaty settlement lands that are a part of this agreement are around the town of Y ale. With respect to Stó:lô, while there is asserted traditional territory that overlaps en - tirely the Y ale area, their core territory is right around the c hilliwack area.

We would not go into the c hilliwack area to seek treaty settlement lands for another first nation. n evertheless, it's important to remember that the Y ale treaty does contemplate a future treaty. We, of course, have the non-derogation clause that we have discussed. but if you take a look at

section 2.12.3, that

section con - templates future treaties that could impact on the Y ale treaty and offers a resolution to that. in short, the land selection that we make in terms of treaty settlement lands is designed to avoid impacts on the core territories of the surrounding first n ation. a gain, to reiterate: there is nothing that prevents Stó:lô from eventually having treaty settlement lands that are within the Y ale first nation area. B. Simpson: The minister's answer gets to the heart of the issue for the Stó:lô. She must know that. h er staff must know that.

The Stó:lô were moved by the settle - ment government out of the area that the Y ale remained in, and they were moved to the c hilliwack area. [1135] So to suggest that just because of place, actually undermines the whole t reaty c ommission process, which does not require a proof of claim and doesn't pre- fer residence over an argument or a contention of the time immemorial rights. l et me put into the record the evidence that's been presented to this government.

The minister contended yesterday, as part of her argument, that the Y ale band possessed exclusive rights over reserve lands in the can - yon. i've been provided contrary evidence, evidence that would come out in a committee, evidence that would come out — if there was more time on this final agree - ment — that the canyon reserves upriver of the ir 1, indian r eserve 1, were actually always understood as shared collective lands. in fact, c ommissioner Gilbert M.

Sproat on a ugust 5, 1879, in a statement about Y ale indians proper, ex - presses explicitly that it is Y ale and other first n ations — of course, the term at the time was indians — that have rights to all of it, including the five mile canyon. in the 1880s the h udson's bay c ompany still tracked hundreds of Stó:lô villages still occupied all up and down the f raser, and again language was used about time im - memorial residents in those areas. The minister talked about five mile canyon yesterday. The Stó:lô maintain and claim real property in five mile canyon to this day.

So the argument that because of where the Y ale are they somehow get pre-eminence in a first-past-the-post system, like the b.c. t reaty c ommission process is de - volving to, does undermine the Stó:lô and adds insult to injury because of them being moved. in 1938, and i hope i'm pronouncing this correct, a e ayem memorial was erected to the collective Stó:lô rights in the canyon that was bulldozed in 2008 by the Y ale.

So to claim, again, that because the Y ale live there that gives them pre-eminent rights over first n ations that claim time immemorial rights to that area is the problem with the treaty process. a gain, i'm not blaming the Y ale or the b.c . t reaty c ommission. They are simply charged by this govern - ment. The problem is that the b.c . t reaty c ommission hasn't been enabled — through staffing levels, through funding and through mandate — to address overlapping

british c olumbia Debates7838 t hursday, June 2, 2011 claims in advance of the treaty table. a ll they're required to do is get a declaration of overlapping claims, not equipped or mandated to try and address those as other jurisdictions do. My question to the minister is this, then. She keeps coming back to…. The primary argument that the min - ister makes to the extinguishment of Stó:lô rights or the contention by Stó:lô that their rights have been extin - guished is that while the Y ale get treaty rights, Stó:lô still have constitutional rights.

While the Y ale get rights of gatekeeping and permitting, Stó:lô still have constitu - tional rights that some kind of best effort or some kind of reasonable access test will be applied to. So what is the difference between a treaty right and a constitutional right, then? [1140] The Chair: h on. Members, the member for n elson- creston seeks leave to make an introduction. l eave granted. Introductions by Members M. Mungall: it's my great pleasure to introduce to the h ouse Donna and r oman Matieschyn. on July 23 they will officially become my father- and mother-in-law, and they're joining me today for lunch.

May the h ouse please make them welcome. Debate Continued Hon. M. Polak: first to clarify. My reference from our discussions yesterday was to the rights that the Y ale have under the indian a ct. u nder the indian a ct, they have exclusive rights to reserve land. They can unilat - erally bar access to the reserve land. People who would be contravening that would be in trespass. it is not a first-past-the-post system. The b.c. t reaty c ommission is not a first-past-the-post system, nor are our treaty negotiations reflective of that position either.

The clauses that protect the rights of other first n ations in the area are the derogation clause…. Those are standard, and they contemplate further in the treaty the potential for future treaties that may impact on the Y ale treaty. So it is not a first-past-the-post system. There is no advantage to the first n ation who gets there first. based on the reserve lands that the Y ale have — or, in- deed, any f irst n ation with whom we were dealing — we would not have approved treaty settlement lands for Stó:lô in the Y ale core territory.

That would not have happened. t reaty rights are constitutionally protected, and it is our view that the defined treaty rights of the Y ale in this treaty are not incompatible with Stó:lô's yet-to-be-defined treaty rights, which of course are in negotiation. With regard to the history, the member speaks of it as though it is some kind of cut-and-dried affair. in fact, the earliest evidence that we have for habitation there is in the early 1900s with respect to Stó:lô being present. The evidence does not show anything beyond what could have been allowed through an authorization or a protocol with the Y ale.

There's no way of knowing that. indeed, the c anadian government has recognized the Y ale as an independent first n ations band for the last 110 years. The core territory for the Stó:lô is not in the Y ale treaty settlement lands.

That does not mean that Stó:lô were never present there. in fact, we recognize the transient nature of many of the activities that take place on the land base going back to our prehistory. n onetheless, we do not have evidence that shows, be- fore the early 1900s, that there was a presence of Stó:lô, other than that which could be easily explained through an authorization of a protocol with Y ale. B. Simpson: i would never suggest that this is cut and dry.

There's a lot of money expended on it and a lot of brain power put to it. it definitely is not cut and dry. f irst n ations all over this province, as aboriginal peoples did wherever, didn't actually have lines on maps. They didn't have maps. They had ways of moving around.

They had access to hunting and fishing rights. if they crossed paths, sometimes it would be conflict; sometimes it would be a meal and a nod and a shaking of hands. [1145] So it is very difficult, once the c anadian govern - ment…. it's why the majority of first n ations in the province of british c olumbia are not in the treaty pro - cess. it does force them to start doing the very things that the government wants them to do, which is to con - strain and define and limit the rights that they believe they had. i sat with one chief, who said to me that he just simply doesn't recognize crown title, and maybe crown ought to be the one that puts forward the case that they have title.

So i get that it's not cut and dry. That's not the issue. The minister indicates that Y ale first n ation has abso- lute rights on their indian reserve land. The Stó:lô can state that that's simply not the case — that Y ale, on ir 1, do. l et's take a look, then, at the k uthlalth, which is de - fined in

section 1 and is assigned in this treaty to Y ale. n ow, the documentation i've been given is that in a royal commission in 1913, c hief James of the Y ale first n ation attempted to make ir 3 Y ale. That was rebuffed, and it was given to — and i'm not even going to try to pronounce the name of the bands — a band of the t ait tribe. That was reaffirmed in 2009, in a decision by c anada that ir 3 was not a Y ale land; it belonged to an - other tribe. Stó:lô have indicated that that's an example of where the Y ale treaty assigns rights over an indian reserve land that previous decisions did not assign to Y ale. So i

british c olumbia Debatest hursday, June 2, 2011 7839 wonder if the minister could clarify her understanding of what happened in that particular case. Hon. M. Polak: i want to correct the member. k uthlalth, or ir 3, has been assigned to the Shxw'ow'hamel by the federal government, and it is not part of the treaty. B.

Simpson: So that's a misunderstanding i guess i have. h owever, it is defined in here. it is understood by Stó:lô that they now have restricted access as a result of the treaty. a gain, it's one of those things that when you're trying to examine a 495-page treaty that's given to you in the eleventh hour and understand what's in it and in a truncated debate, misunderstandings may result. i'm sure i'm going to get e-mails from folks who know a lot better than i do, who are watching this, that may end up contesting the minister's understanding of what went on.

We're going to wind up here, so let me cut to the chase on another issue that was raised last night. The minister said a couple of times that the Stó:lô had not provided evidence or had not engaged. There were requests, and those requests had not come forward. in a specific instance about fishing villages, there was a statement made that evidence had not been provided. i'm being told that boxes of documents were provided and that one of the members of her staff team was the re- cipient of those boxes. So if the minister could indicate the veracity of that.

Secondly, last night, when i indicated that the final agreement is new to the public — the final agreement is something that we're dealing with here, but it is new to the public — the minister indicated that the Stó:lô had access to it 18 months ago. My understanding is they had access to…. Was it a draft, or was it the aiP? if it's the aiP , it's still sup- posed to be a work-in-progress, not the final agreement. [1150] My understanding is Stó:lô saw the final agreement at the same time that we did in this h ouse and that the public did.

Subsequent to the aiP being revealed to them 18 months ago, Stó:lô engaged the government, as i understand it, in serious claims against the treaty. So again, if i could get a correction to the record with respect to the boxes of information provided to c anada in their request for the fishing villages and whether or not they saw the ai P or the final agreement 18 months ago and what has been the nature of the dialogue with Stó:lô since they saw whatever that document was 18 months ago. Hon. M.

Polak: i'll attempt to make this very brief. firstly, with respect to k uthlalth, to clarify for the mem- ber. if you refer, then, to

section 12.1.2, the reference to k uthlalth is simply affirming existing rights that the Y ale have under the indian a ct. There is no change. This is simply what already exists. With respect to the information provided that the ne- gotiators have asked for from Stó:lô, they continue to provide information of a general nature and have been unable to provide specific site locations. We continue to seek better information from them and more specific in- formation. We will continue to do that.

With respect to their awareness of and their access to the agreement-in-principle information, the draft treaty final agreement, we have shared drafts with them of the final agreement all the way through. The agreement-in- principle, of course, is what the final agreement is built on. With respect to that, the agreement-in-principle was on our website when it was signed March 9, 2006, and the final agreement went up on our website in f ebruary of 2010. but they have received drafts throughout. B.

Simpson: i know the minister has to close off de - bate and the other c lerk is here. i did need to make a correction, though. i guess in my passion for the ques - tion, i stated that the Stó:lô had bulldozed the memorial when, in fact, it was the Y ale. So that's an error on my part, and i would ask h ansard to reflect that. Hon. M. Polak: n oting the hour, i move the commit- tee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again. Motion approved. The committee rose at 11:55 a.m. The h ouse resumed; Mr.

Speaker in the chair. c ommittee of the Whole (Section b), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again. c ommittee of Supply (Section a), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again. h on. P . bell moved adjournment of the h ouse. Motion approved. Mr. Speaker: This h ouse stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon. The h ouse adjourned at 11:56 a.m. PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM Committee of Supply e Sti Mate S: office of the Pre Mier (continued) The h ouse in c ommittee of Supply (Section a ); D. h orne in the chair.

british c olumbia Debates7840 t hursday, June 2, 2011 The committee met at 10:26 a.m. on Vote 10: office of the Premier, $9,455,000 (continued). Hon. C. Clark: l et me start today, first of all, by con- gratulating all british c olumbians, all of c anada.

We're all behind c anada's team, the c anucks, who won the game last night, which was great. it was a fantastic game, with r affi t orres making us all proud in the last 17 seconds or something of the game — fantastic. a nd we send our condolences to boston for having lost the game, but also, much more seriously, Governor Patrick has declared a state of emergency in the state be- cause of tornadoes that have so far killed four people. t ornado activity in the state…. it has been a very, very, very difficult time for the people of boston. on behalf of the government and the people of british c olumbia, i'd like to extend our condolences for their losses and offer our support in any way that we can to try and make sure that, you know, as they get through this kind of a crisis, which is an awful, terrible impact for the families and the communities there and obviously for the entire state, that we're there with them to support them should they need us, should they ask. i spoke to Governor Patrick a day or two ago.

We talked hockey. We didn't talk about the circumstances in the state now, but if i do get a chance to talk to him again, i'll certainly be making the point that i'm making to the h ouse today. We stand with them. We offer our condolences, and we will be there should they ask and should they need us. A.

Dix: it's been, as the Premier will know, a very dif - ficult couple of weeks in the u nited States, not just in Massachusetts, with respect to these weather-related in - cidents. it reminds us, i think, all of us on all sides of the h ouse, of the need to be prepared, the need to support each other and the importance of having those institu - tions in place. o ver time, as the Premier will know, we've developed a public health care system that responds — and this isn't a partisan issue — under both governments, nDP and l iberal. it responded, for example, to the SarS issue here in british c olumbia very quickly. i think that when you compare that to places where public infrastructure is allowed to decline, you see it in these moments.

So it's important, and it's an important reminder to all of us who have responsible positions in public office to both be prepared and then, when incidents inevit - ably happen, as they can — there's nothing we can do about the kind of weather-related incidents you noted — that we support each other, whether we live in the same province, the same country, the same continent or the same world. i wanted to ask the Premier about the status of the evergreen line. This is a major federal-provincial discussion and municipal discussion.

The Premier will know, as she formally represented Port Moody, that this has been a long- standing issue and an important issue in that community and into the t ri-c ities and, of course, for the whole l ower Mainland.

The government representative said that her pre - decessor said that "The solution for a $4 million gap in funding to complete the project will be found, and it will be found by the end of the year." n ow, that promise has been made several times in several years, but that par - ticular quote comes from 2010. [The bells were rung.] So i'm wondering where the government is at on that, and the Premier will respond after we do this next division. The Chair: h earing the bells, we'll take a short recess for the vote in the main chamber.

The committee recessed from 10:30 a.m. to 10:55 a.m. [D. h orne in the chair.] Hon. C. Clark: in response to the member's question. before we cast that vote on division, he was asking about the e vergreen line. c ertainly, i used to represent Port Moody. i used to live in Port Moody. before that i represented Port Moody–b urnaby Mountain. i can say that having driven that road so many times and commuted back and forth out of Port Moody and lived through the traffic and gone the other way to Port c oquitlam and lived through the traffic, this is a hugely necessary thing for the com - munities out there.

The e vergreen line will make a very real difference in people's lives when it's built. it's been a long time com - ing. This government is committed to making sure that it happens. We've committed $410 million to the project, as i'm sure the member knows, and that's in addition to the over $400 million that's been committed by the gov- ernment of c anada. That money remains committed. We're patiently waiting for t ransl ink to finalize their share of the funding that it had previously committed to the project. The ball is in their court.

We're waiting to hear from the mayors and how they intend to get their funding to the table that they've agreed to bring, and we're very much looking forward to that. f rom my perspective, this project can't happen soon enough. So i hope the mayors can find a way to meet their commitment that they made so that we can get on with this project. it is a worthy project. it makes a real difference — and not just in terms of people's lives and people's commute times, which when you live in the suburbs really takes a chunk out of your life.

british c olumbia Debatest hursday, June 2, 2011 7841 i'm not alone in knowing this. Thousands and thou - sands of people, particularly around the l ower Mainland, know this. When you live in the suburbs and you're struggling with a commute every single day, it takes hours out of your time with your family. The quality-of- life change when you're able to cut that commute down is really big.

That's certainly been one of the great values of having the train go out there as well, which has been a huge benefit for the communities. n ot only that, though. it's a big impact for the en - vironment, a very positive impact for the environment in terms of reducing our carbon footprint. i think the project makes a lot of sense. We want to see it go ahead as soon as it possibly can, and we are waiting patiently for the mayors to meet their commitment and come forward with their share of the money. o ur money ab - solutely remains committed. A.

Dix: The Premier in the last election, the l iberal Party — that's the majority in the h ouse today; it's the reason why the Premier is the Premier — committed that the construction on this project, the project they committed to the people of the t ri-cities and the people of the l ower Mainland, would be started in 2010. it's the Deputy Premier and Minister of finance who chose the governance structure. in fact, as much as they try to blame the mayors, it's the provincial government that controls the govern - ance structure at t ransl ink. They chose the alignment.

They chose the operating system, which set the cost. They chose all of these things. They dumped $100 mil - lion in costs on fare gates onto them without funding them — the provincial government. That was also the Deputy Premier and Minister of finance. They're good at dumping the cost. n othing is happening. They keep delaying. They keep promising this election after elec - tion after election, and nothing happens.

So i guess i want to ask the Premier: does the Premier not think that there's a provincial role here in helping to ensure that the project actually go ahead? i mean, it's one thing to be able to say: "i t's the mayors. blame the mayors." The key decisions here were made by the prov- ince, and the province is absent without leave in this discussion. c learly, there's a problem with the project.

They said that construction would be underway in 2010, and now it's some indeterminate point in the future. i know that the l iberal Party likes to save campaign promises from election after election after election. it's kind of the transportation equivalent of 5,000 long-term care beds, but the fact of the matter is that they are respon- sible for the situation we're in. n ow it appears that a project which people in the t ri-c ities, but also all over the l ower Mainland, are expecting will go ahead is indefinitely de- layed because the government doesn't have its act together. What is the Premier going to do?

What efforts is the Premier going to initiate to ensure that the e vergreen line, which the people of b.c. were promised by the l iberal Party in the 2009 election — it wasn't an abstraction; they said construction was going to start in 2010 when they campaigned in that election campaign — that the l iberal party follow through on that commitment…? [1100] Hon. C. Clark: Well, we do remain fully supportive of this project. it is a great project for the t ri-cities. it's great for the environment. it's great for commuters who want to be able to spend more time with their families.

We are absolutely fully supportive of it going ahead, and we remain committed to it. That $410 million that the government committed to the project is there. it absolutely remains committed. The federal money is there; it remains committed. What still needs to be done is that the mayors need to find a way to meet the commitment that they made to come up with their share of the money. i know that it's dif - ficult.

They're a large group of people, diverse points of view. n onetheless, they need to find a solution to come up with their share of the money. a s i said, i don't think that this project can go ahead soon enough. We want to make sure that it goes ahead absolutely as fast as possible, because the people of the t ri-cities need it. They deserve it. it's been promised for a long time, and the money is committed to support it. a s i said, we're waiting patiently for the mayors to come up with their portion of the money, a portion that they committed to finding. i'm very, very hopeful that they will be able to do that.

We're working in the spirit of cooperation with them, and we've certainly been work - ing with them all along. a s i said, we're hopeful that they'll be able to meet the commitment they made. We're very, very hopeful that we can get this project moving as soon as humanly pos - sible, because the people of the t ri-cities need this, and they deserve it. A. Dix: Well, the government signed an M ou in September 2010 on this question. They have the lead on this file along with the mayors. What has the province done? Well, what have they done? i guess there was an extension.

When they signed the M ou , it was a two- party Mou . it wasn't just the mayors; it was the province. The province has a role in that, obviously. [1105] We're talking about a significant portion of money that has to be found and so far no apparent tax source or other source for that money, which is apparent. So the province took responsibility in September 2010. a ll that happened then was there was an extension after that provided till March, now another extension. There'll be more extensions presumably in future. The province signs an Mou saying they're taking the lead on this matter.

What does that mean if they're not

british c olumbia Debates7842 t hursday, June 2, 2011 doing anything? They're just sitting back and taunting the mayors, saying: "o h, you're failing us; you're the reason." it was the province and the b.c. l iberal Party that committed to this project going ahead. it was the prov - ince and the b.c. l iberal Party that signed the M ou and said they were taking a lead. Where are they? What does that mean, other than asking the mayors to find the money magically somehow? So what does the province's leadership on the e vergreen line mean? What does the Mou mean?

What does the province's role in that M ou mean, if they're not going to do anything to support the mayors in find- ing their share of the money? [1110] Hon. C. Clark: The M ou with t ransl ink made a commitment that they would find a way to close the gap on funding this incredibly important piece of infrastruc- ture, one that will, as i said, do a great deal to diminish our carbon footprint and also do a lot to improve the quality of life in the t ri-cities, which is long overdue.

This has been promised for a long time. i note that with previous governments, when this member was chief of staff to other Premiers, this was promised. in mid-1998 they put out a press release an - nouncing that they were setting the course for the new Skyt rain line out in the t ri-cities, and they never deliv - ered on it. of course, the difference with this is that this government has committed $410 million to this Skytrain line, to making sure it happens. That's something that they failed for a decade to deliver on — promises, prom - ises, promises and never any funding, never any real commitment.

They never ever, ever put their money where their mouth was. it was all just empty talk. The difference is this government has committed $410 million. We have set that money aside. it is ready; it is waiting. We are committed to our part of making sure that this line goes. We have worked with the fed - eral government. They've come up with $400 million. We put the hard work in there to make sure that hap - pened. i know that the mayors are working hard and that t ransl ink is working hard to find a way to also meet their commitment.

The thing about government once you've been doing it for a while is that a commitment doesn't matter for anything if you don't attach some money to it. if govern- ment is unwilling to put their money where their mouth is, it is just empty words. That is what we saw for a decade under the n ew Democrats, for a decade when this member sat in the Premier's office — empty words. e mpty words to the people of the t ri-c ities, and eventually the people of the t ri-c ities caught up with that and turfed them out of office. This government has come up with the money.

We aren't just saying we want to do it; we have committed the money to doing it. a s i said, i don't think that this line can get started soon enough. That money is there. The federal money is there. a ll we need is for the mayors to be able to resolve their part of the funding problem. We have an agreement with them. We've made a firm commitment. We're walking the talk. We've put our money where our mouth is. This is vastly different from what we saw in the decade of n ew Democrats, in the decade of decline in british c olumbia, where it was promises, promises, promises and almost never any - thing delivered.

That's why the people of the t ri-cities are counting on us to deliver this. We will deliver it. We want to see this happen. We've delivered our share of the money. We've been work - ing with the mayors, and we've been working with t ransl ink. i know i'm confident that with all the smart people around that table, they will be able to meet their commitment.

The other difference, of course, between us and the nDP …. i mean, the l eader of the o pposition stands up and says: "o h gee, we wish you would just tell them what to do." [1115] Well, that's not the way government should work in british c olumbia. it is the way that it used to work in the 1990s when we had a provincial government that felt like it was up to them to decide to order every other level of government around, to tell them what to do — every - thing out of the Premier's office. The decisions of the Premier ruled the day. it was "my way or the highway" when that member sat in the Premier's office.

That is not my approach to governing. That is not the right direction for british c olumbia. We need to respect the autonomy of local governments. We need to allow them to be able to make the decisions that they're em - powered to make. We need to respect them when they say they make a commitment, and we need to believe in their ability to fulfil it.

This is an agreement for cooperation. it's not an agree- ment for my way or the highway, which is probably the way the l eader of the o pposition would like it, because certainly that's the way he helped govern when he sat in the Premier's office. it's a different approach to governing. it's an approach where we put our money where our mouth is. a nd it's an approach where, when we say we want to cooperate and we want to respect other levels of government, we actually deliver on that. A. Dix: Well, it's all very interesting.

Y ou know, in 1998 we were building the Millennium l ine. i don't know what the…. i guess the Premier is warming up for her coming period as l eader of the o pposition. i mean, the line was built. i know in my case, i take transit and t ransl ink and Skyt rain almost every day. The Premier may not be aware that you can take the

british c olumbia Debatest hursday, June 2, 2011 7843 Millennium l ine through n orth burnaby to l ougheed Mall, but that's what you can do. i take it regularly. i take Skyt rain all the time in my duties, of course, like the people of the t ri-cities. This has been promised for a long time, and the govern- ment has failed to deliver. They made a big announcement in September 2010. The person who is now the Solicitor General, who was the t ransportation Minister, was there. The Premier was there. They said that funding would be in place by the end of 2010 — right?

They took responsibility for that, and then they didn't deliver, as they haven't delivered again and again on this project. So that's the question, but i'll move on. The Premier wants to wax eloquent about the 1990s, but the fact is they've been in power for ten years, and they're still talking about a funding commitment to something they've repeatedly promised over the last few years. it's embarrassing. in her open letter on her website the Premier referred to using the carbon tax to support public transit. i just want to ask the Premier what she means by that.

The Minister of t ransportation seemed to suggest that might be a new carbon tax or a regional carbon tax. What did the minister mean since, obviously, they've already spent all the carbon tax money? n ow they've spent it again with the hS t announcement. What does the Premier mean by using the carbon taxes to support public transit? [1120] Hon. C.

Clark: i know the member mentioned the Millennium l ine as a decision which they interfered with as well, not respecting, again, the role of municipal and local governments in decision-making, more evi - dence of the "my way or the highway" approach. of course, the reason i go back to the 1990s is be - cause that's the last time this member had his hands on the levers of power. i think if people want to know what they're getting with the l eader of the o pposition, we need to look back at his history in government. h e says: "Well, gee, we interfered with it, but was it built?" Y eah, it got built, and boy, did they interfere with it. i don't think local governments like that heavy- handed approach. i think local governments and local taxpayers expect to be respected, but they also expect governments to be able to commit the money when they say they're going to do something — to come up with the money for it, which is exactly what we've done.

The member references an open letter that i wrote, and i just want to read some of it into the record. "o ver the past several years, b.c. has gained international rec - ognition for being a leader on the green economy and taking strong, bold steps to reduce our carbon footprint. We have set legislated targets to reduce our carbon emissions 33 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050. a nd as a province, we have taken strong, bold steps to achieve them." When i took office on March 14, there were important decisions to be made. "Do we follow the path that has been laid out through 2012 on the carbon tax?

Do we continue to be engaged with other provinces and states in developing policies to reduce carbon emissions?" in both cases, as i said in my letter, the answer is yes. Getting to the member's question: where do we go from here? The carbon tax has put a price on carbon, and it is revenue-neutral, as i'm sure the member knows. but what the Minister of t ransportation and i have been talking about are future carbon taxes after the next scheduled increments in 2012 and whether or not some of that could go to support transit.

What i said in my letter is that i'm open to having that discussion with local communities. one of the im - portant things to remember, though, is that if we are to have that discussion, everybody walking in the room has to know that we will not entertain any discussion that means the folks from k imberley are paying for a Skyt rain to ubc. We are just not going to entertain that kind of debate or discussion with the local mayors. There is going to have to be a regional aspect to the discussion as we enter into it.

What i've said is i'm in - terested in entering into that discussion because i think there is an appetite for it, and we are very committed to the climate change agenda, unlike the new Democrats. They voted against the carbon tax. They ran in an election against the carbon tax. They ran in an election against the carbon tax, and of course, they lost. They voted against cap-and-trade enabling legislation. They didn't support that, and they lost. They've called for a moratorium on clean power, including wind power, across the province.

They oppose Site c, which pro - duces power at among the lowest Gh Gs per gigawatt compared to other forms of power. [1125] They support running burrard Thermal full out, a massive generator of Gh Gs, and they stand up and talk about the carbon tax like it was their idea. They talk about protecting the environment like it was their idea. We talk about recent history, which is of course what i'm talking about — their opposition to most of the government's clean energy, climate change agenda, which they've been steadfastly, ideologically, dogmatically opposed to.

They talk about the carbon tax like it was their idea. Then you look back in time, and even their own members say they had a lousy record on protecting the environ - ment when they had a chance to do something about it when they were in power. e ven their own members say that, and they still get up in the l egislature on a regular basis and try and adopt the clean energy, clean environ- ment, climate change agenda when all they have done is try and stand in the way of the environmental initiatives that this government has taken over the years.

They ran in an election against the clean energy in - itiatives that this government has taken. it takes a lot of gall for the l eader of the o pposition — whose own

british c olumbia Debates7844 t hursday, June 2, 2011 members say had a terrible record when he was in gov - ernment and who has been part of an opposition that has consistently opposed all of the government's agenda to try and combat climate change — to stand up today and pretend to be an environmental crusader who cares about what's going to happen with the carbon tax. h e doesn't care what's going to happen with the carbon tax. if he had his way, they wouldn't have had one. They ran in an election against it.

They got trounced in that election, and why did they? because british c olumbians care about the environment. british c olumbians care about climate change. british c olumbians care about supporting a government that is going to make sure the environment is better when we leave it tomorrow than it is today. british c olumbians really care about these issues. british c olumbians like the government's climate change agenda, an environmental agenda. They got a chance to issue their judgment on the n ew Democrats' opposition to all these initiatives. They did it, and they did it in style.

They trounced them in an election. A. Dix: Well, you know, of course, what prompts these long speeches. We ask a simple question about a letter that the Premier herself wrote, there's five minutes of consultation over there, and then we get a long speech about everything else but. What we're talking about here is the evergreen line. interjections. A. Dix: They can talk. The member from k amloops used to be against gambling. The fact of the matter is that the b.c. l iberal Party promised the e vergreen line would start construc - tion in 2010. They broke this promise.

The Premier's response is: "o h, they didn't build any rapid transit in the 1990s." We built the Millennium l ine, and she says: "o h, i don't like that." The difference, i guess, is that the Millennium l ine, for people in the t ri-cities, was built. The e vergreen line isn't being built, and the government isn't doing anything about it. it's a pretty straightforward question. The Premier said on her website that she was considering using the carbon tax for transit. She now says that's a future car - bon tax — it's some time in the future — that she's going to use for transit.

So when is she going to start consid - ering that option? This is a reasonable question. i mean, it's her letter. it's what she's proposing here. "i am open to considering using the carbon tax to support regional initiatives." That's not just regional initiatives in the l ower Mainland; that's regional in - itiatives across the province. Well, when is she going to start that? it's her proposal. So when are those discus - sions going to be engaged? a t what point in time?

That's a reasonable question to ask the Premier about a letter she wrote in her budget year, and i just need an answer. i look forward to another ten-minute speech from the party that opposed creating more parks than any other time in our history. They opposed it. Their members were advocating mining in parks at the time. We all re - member that. o ur park creation record changed british c olumbia for the better, and their record has been to al- low the deterioration of our parks. The Premier's great achievement was stopping char - ging for parking in parks. but they did it.

The point is if it wasn't the b.c. l iberal Party and her own government once she was part of it that did it…. This is her greatest achievement — taking off a negative thing that the gov - ernment itself did. [1130] So it's a pretty simple question for the Premier. She may not want to answer. That's okay, i guess. We'll move on to something else. She proposed it. i'm just asking her when those discussions around a new carbon tax are scheduled to begin. Hon. C.

Clark: Well, the beginning of the consulta - tion was the issuance of the letter letting people know that i'm open to having these discussions, and i know that the environment Minister is also open to having these discussions. They are in the process of designing a more formal process for making sure that we get feed- back on it and have a chance to talk about it. but i can say this in terms of the less formal pro - cess. a s part of my commitment to open government, we have been doing town halls. i have been personally doing unscripted town halls all across the province. i've been to visit f ort St.

John. i've been to visit cranbrook most recently. i had a great visit in cranbrook. a nd i've been to visit c omox, r ichmond. We've done town halls across the province, and they've been great. Those are a chance for real consultation with people about where we're going with the carbon tax and where we're going with climate change. These issues have cer - tainly come up in many of the communities. a nd you know what people say? They say: "We care about the impact that we're having on the environment." Peopl

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H0602am-04
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H0602am 04
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	3276ef6d0980937a4b2b9a811a70f84683fb193b

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).