2003 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 2003

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 14, Number 5

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25 b )

Seal hunt on B.C. coast

B. Belsey

Cancer

B. Locke

Battle of Vimy Ridge

B. Kerr

Oral Questions

Government portal project

J. MacPhail

Hon. S. Santori

Sale of methadone

B. Locke

Hon. G. Cheema

Federal court ruling on parliamentary privilege

T. Bhullar

Hon. G. Plant

Mental health services in Prince Rupert

B. Belsey

Hon. G. Cheema

Funding for research and development

R. Lee

Hon. S. Bond

Sale of B.C. Rail assets

J. MacPhail

Hon. J. Reid

Francois Lake ferry service

D. MacKay

Hon. J. Reid

Motions on Notice

Removal of John van Dongen from select standing committees (Motion 94)

Hon. G. Plant

Powers of Crown Corporations Committee (Motion 95)

Hon. G. Plant

Referral of reports to committees and powers of Public Accounts Committee (Motion 96)

Hon. G. Plant

Powers of Finance and Government Services Committee (Motion 97)

Hon. G. Plant

Committee of Supply

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

Hon. G. Plant

J. MacPhail

J. Nuraney

D. MacKay

L. Mayencourt

K. Stewart

[ Page 6147 ]

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 2003

The House

met at 2:03 p.m.

Prayers.

[1405]

Introductions by Members

Weisbeck: Somewhere up there in the very busy gallery are a couple of

members from Kelowna, Alison McNeill and Leslie Martin. Would the House please

make them welcome.

J. Bray:

Up in the members' gallery are two very special people joining us here from

Vancouver. Certainly, they are the group most responsible for me being here in

this House and for anything else. I'd ask the House to please welcome my mother

and father, Marshall Bray, QC, and Evelyn Bray, to the House.

Hawes: In the House today we have Nancy Wells, who is superintendent of

school district 75 in Mission, one of the finest administrators that we have in

this province. With her is Dianne Parkinson, principal of Riverside Trades,

Training and Technology Centre in Mission, which is one of the more innovative

creations of any of the school districts in this province. Could the House

please make both of them welcome.

P. Wong:

I'm pleased to introduce a group of 86 students from Sir Charles Tupper

Secondary School in my riding. This school is designated as an inner-city school

and serves 1,000 students. For a large percentage of the student population,

science students to visit the Legislature, totalling 160 students every year.

The Fraser

Institute's recent report card, unfortunately, gave the school a failing grade.

Last month I went to the school and met with the principal, teachers and many

students. I certainly agreed with what Principal Palmer said: "Tupper is a

positive working and learning environment. Students are polite and respectful,

and they have one of the best arts and drama programs in the Vancouver

area."

In order to

keep the students motivated, I'm pleased to inform the House that under the

better community partnership outreach network that has recently been established

by volunteers in my riding, the Vancouver Cathay Lions Club has agreed to offer

a $500 scholarship to this school. This is the third scholarship that I have

personally garnered for this school under this network program. Would the House

please give all the students, teacher Mr. David Dougall, along with Mr. Stan

Hack, Mr. Dave Trask, Ms. Anne Young and Ms. Cornelia Sussman, a very warm

welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) SEAL HUNT ON B.C. COAST

Belsey: I rise today to talk about a first nations seal hunt on B.C.'s

coast. Last week I rose in the House and asked why the federal government

considered it safe to explore for oil and gas off the east coast but not off the

west coast. Today I rise to ask: why does the federal government allow a seal

hunt on the east coast but bans a hunt on the west coast?

The seal

population off our coastal waters has grown to a level that now endangers stocks

of salmon, herring, cod, oolichan and even the trout in the rivers and streams.

Seals congregate in the rivers and estuaries, hunt in packs and can virtually

wipe out a salmon run or devastate a herring spawn. The ever-increasing number

of these animals has resulted in seals being found further up rivers than ever

before, well above tidal waters and well into fresh water. These mammals are

there for one reason and one reason only: to feed on the spawning fish. Workers

managing spawning grounds have noted that many of the returning fish are

terribly scarred from seal attacks.

Chief Roy

Jones Jr. of Haida Gwaii, since an earlier meeting with myself and the Minister

of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, has been working diligently to promote a

sustainable commercial industry that uses every part of the harvested seal. From

the nose to the flippers, Chief Jones has sought out markets. From clothing to

human consumption to medicines, the entire harvested seal can be marketed.

In Mr.

Jones's own words: "The controversies surrounding a seal hunt are so

complex that narrow-mindedness will have to be overcome by many extreme

environmentalists. These people, I fear, will be the ones that will never

understand the concept of a seal hunt, and are people who may be most dangerous

to myself and anyone involved in a seal hunt."

Mr.

Speaker, I join Chief Jones in hoping that we can develop a harvest based on

science and not on rhetoric.

[1410]

CANCER

Locke: On December 17, 1999, my cell phone rang. It was my doctor telling me

my test results came back positive. I had cancer, and he had scheduled my

surgery for the 28th, less than two weeks away. I spent four days in hospital

and six months recuperating. The word "cancer" is frightening and for

many people, including myself, life-changing. At first, I felt very alone, but

soon learned that I was anything but.

Every year

over 17,000 people in B.C. are diagnosed, and approximately 8,300 deaths occur.

Cancer is now the second leading cause of death in Canada. While one-third of us

will be diagnosed with the disease in our lifetime, thanks to the advancement in

prevention and treatment more than half of us will survive.

The month

of April is Canadian Cancer Society's annual campaign. During this month, they

raise funds

[ Page 6148 ]

for cancer support programs and research. In my community of Surrey they

raised $63,000 during the door-to-door campaign last year. Amazing people spend

endless hours in our fight to beat this disease, and I would like to thank all

the doctors, nurses, researchers, support staff, peer support groups and

counsellors for all of their hard work, and most of all our families and friends

and employers for supporting cancer patients. Cancer for me was a refocus, a

re-evaluation of what is important in life. Cancer can be and is being beaten

every single day.

BATTLE OF VIMY RIDGE

B. Kerr:

The World War I battle of Vimy Ridge is considered to be one of the most

significant points in Canadian military history. More than 100,000 troops from

coast to coast, with brigades from every region of Canada, fought at Vimy under

a unified Canadian command. The victory of Vimy Ridge was a turning point in the

war for the Allies and an important moment in the building of the Canadian

nation.

As I look

around this House I see a well-lit, comfortable room that is warm and safe.

Eighty-six years ago it was a very different story. Men did not spend four years

in a building such as this. They spent four years in the trenches. In the

trenches, our grandfathers and great-grandfathers lived lives of filth and

misery. Barbed wire channelled soldiers into virtual killing grounds where

machine guns would hack them to pieces. Men were chopped up by bullets, shredded

by exploding shells, suffocated by gas, incinerated by flame throwers and

smothered by caved-in trenches. Horror had become commonplace, slaughter had

become mundane, and death was sometimes callously regarded as normal wastage.

This was the reality of war and something we should never forget.

Last Sunday

the West Shore Royal Canadian Legion commemorated the battle of Vimy Ridge with

a candlelight ceremony at the West Shore Vimy memorial, the only Vimy memorial

outside of France. There they dedicated maple leaf plaques to honour the

veterans who sacrificed so much, so that we could be here today.

This April

3 the Parliament of Canada declared April 9 to officially be Vimy Ridge Day. On

this day and on every subsequent April 9, flags on the Peace Tower in Ottawa

will fly at half-staff to commemorate those who lost their lives in this pivotal

battle of the First World War. On this day we, too, should take time in our

deliberations to remember the great sacrifices that were made by those who came

before us so that we could debate freely all the issues that are important to us

today. We should remember, too, that pivotal day in Canadian history.

[1415]

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT PORTAL PROJECT

MacPhail: Just the other night in this chamber, the Minister of Management

Services admitted that the Premier's pet portal project — pet portal pratfall

— has so far proved to be a dismal failure — a $7.1 million failure. But the

news gets worse. Now it appears the minister saddled with this boondoggle is

going to have to come up with an additional $12 million to make the Premier's

portal promise a reality.

Will the

minister stand today and assure this House that he will table the business plan

for the Premier's portal project, including an accounting of the $7.1 million

spent so far, before one more dime is thrown into this digital dumpster?

Hon. S.

Santori: As I indicated to the member the other night in estimates, this is

a three-year project. The total cost over the three years is $18 million, and we

will come in on budget and deliver services to the people of this province.

Mr.

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

MacPhail: Only this government would claim to be 400 percent over budget and

still claim they're coming in on budget. Actually, this government has set a new

record for being 400 percent over budget on any project. At least we know that

the $6 million that the Premier is giving to his spin machine across the street

is being well spent. Only they could label a black hole a portal.

Last year

the Premier spent only $2.5 million of his own budget on the portal pratfall.

Where did he get the rest of the money? Well, the Premier sucked up $3.5 million

last year from every other ministry in government — money that should have

gone to make children safe from earthquakes at South Park Elementary and Van

Tech. Instead it went to the Premier's portal passion.

Can the

Minister of Management Services tell us today how much money is going to be

shovelled into this portal pit instead of being spent on making schools safe? He

says $18 million. It's already 400 percent over budget.

Hon. S.

Santori: I am totally amazed that the member has the audacity to stand up in

this House and talk to us about meeting budgets. I think that member's record

speaks for itself. If I may share with you, Mr. Speaker, what e-government means

to that member. It means endless overruns and excessive spending, and it means

easy come, easy go.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order. Order, please.

MacPhail: I can understand why that minister…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition has a further

supplementary question.

MacPhail: …is embarrassed by a 400 percent overrun, and that doesn't even

mean it's going to work

[ Page 6149 ]

after the 400 percent overrun — massive cost overruns and zip,

zip-a-dee-do-dah to show for it.

Thousands

of British Columbians have been added to the surgery wait-lists since this

government took over. They know how that $7 million could have been better

spent.

Again, can

the minister responsible for ensuring that the Premier gets his bonus — and

that's all he's doing here — assure all those on the surgical wait-lists that

not one day will be added to their pain and suffering just so the Premier's

digital dream isn't dashed?

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. S.

Santori: It's quite obvious that the member opposite is getting a…

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Mr.

Minister, we will continue when the Leader of the Opposition has come to order.

Please

continue.

[1420]

Hon. S.

Santori: …real good reputation in terms of not getting her facts straight.

I would suggest she's the one who's been going on a fishing trip lately, and not

someone else. As I indicated before, and I will continue to say to the member

and to this House, the project is for $18 million over three years. We will be

on budget.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

SALE OF METHADONE

Locke: My question is to the Minister of State for Mental Health. Methadone

is recognized as an effective treatment for heroin addicts looking to kick their

addiction. However, in my community of Surrey there is a concern that methadone

is being sold illegally on the street and contributing to the drug problem. Can

the minister tell my constituents who has the responsibility to enforce the

rules with regard to the sale of methadone and to ensure that pharmacies are not

contributing to the street drug problem?

Hon. G.

Cheema: Last Friday our deputy minister met with the Surrey council to

address this controversial methadone bylaw. She was joined by others, including

representatives from the College of Physicians and the College of Pharmacists.

The College of Physicians oversees the B.C. methadone program and licenses

physicians to prescribe methadone as a treatment for heroin addiction. The

College of Pharmacists licenses and oversees the pharmacists that dispense

methadone. Pharmacists must follow the instructions of doctors' prescriptions

when dispensing methadone, and that's true for all medical prescriptions. If

they don't, there are consequences, and the College of Pharmacists is willing to

apply those consequences.

For the

members' interest, tomorrow the ministry and the college are again meeting with

the Surrey council to solve this issue.

FEDERAL COURT RULING ON

PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE

Bhullar: My question is to the Attorney General. It's with respect to the

case of Vaid that places limits, as I read it, on parliamentary privilege. It is

my understanding that the federal government has requested leave to the Supreme

Court of Canada for appeal. Should leave be granted, will the Attorney General

call for a vote in this House on whether or not we should apply for intervener

status?

Hon. G.

Plant: Well, I appreciate the work of the member in bringing to our

attention what I believe is an important court decision. It's a decision of the

Federal Court of Appeal. From what I've seen of it so far, I think it says some

important things about parliamentary privilege, the relationship between the

rights and privileges of members and the important duties of a body like a human

rights commission. The usual practice we follow in the Ministry of Attorney

General is that we wait to see if leave is in fact granted by the Supreme Court

of Canada and then make a decision about intervener status. I'd certainly be

happy to hear more from the member about his views on whether we should seek

intervener status, and indeed I would welcome the views of any member of the

House on that particular question.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

IN PRINCE RUPERT

Belsey: My question is to the Minister of State for Mental Health. A truly

tragic death of a Prince Rupert woman last month has raised some serious

concerns over local mental health services. This death was especially tragic in

that the deceased left behind two teenaged children and a husband, who have many

questions about the quality of mental health care. Can the Minister of State for

Mental Health tell my constituents in Prince Rupert what changes, if any, to

mental health service delivery are being considered for Prince Rupert?

Hon. G.

Cheema: I would like to inform the member that the director of mental health

and addictions has been in close contact with the family members to ensure that

a support system is in place for them during this very difficult time. Presently

the NHA has shifted staffing resources over to Prince Rupert as an interim

measure to cover off the staffing shortages.

[1425]

NHA

is also working with the hospital and the Ministry of Children and Family

Development to strengthen services. They are also improving information systems

[ Page 6150 ]

and using tele–mental health services to increase services in the area. NHA

is also looking at developing supportive independent living units in Prince

Rupert.

A forensic

liaison worker's position has also just been approved. It's important to note

that the merging of mental health and addiction has been very helpful for NHA in

working to resolve the issues of mental health in Prince Rupert.

FUNDING FOR

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

R. Lee:

My question is to the Minister of Advanced Education. Many of my constituents

have come to me for clarification on this government's commitment to research

and development. Many of them have been hearing that the government has cut back

funding in this area. To the Minister of Advanced Education: is this true? How

much has the government committed to R and D this year?

Hon. S.

Bond: Probably there's no more compelling reason to talk about research than

the stories shared by my colleague from Surrey–Green Timbers today. Also, the

information that we've received is that as of today, the B.C. genome centre has

received a viral sample from Toronto and is working very hard, as we speak, to

look at cracking the challenging situation that's faced with SARS in the

country.

This

government recognizes the importance of research and development. In fact, we

have invested almost $700 million across a number of ministries in this

government to ensure that research and development not only continues, but that

we're able to attract the best and brightest researchers to the province.

SALE OF B.C. RAIL ASSETS

MacPhail: On February 12 the Premier said in his infomercial that northern

communities have told the government it shouldn't sell B.C. Rail's railbed. The

Premier said he wouldn't. He said: "They've told us we should keep the

tracks, and we will."

Last week

the Premier began dodging even on that commitment. Here's his quote last week.

"Keeping the tracks and the railbed" has now become his new quote.

"The B.C. Rail right-of-way will be maintained in public hands."

There's a world of difference there. Tracks and railbeds are physical assets,

and a right-of-way is not. Perhaps the Minister of Transportation could sort out

the Premier's confusion.

Can she

confirm that the Premier will stand by his commitment to the people of British

Columbia that the province will retain ownership of B.C. Rail's tracks and

railbed? Simple question — yes or no.

Hon. J.

Reid: Yes.

FRANCOIS LAKE FERRY SERVICE

MacKay: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. The Francois Lake

ferry near Burns Lake is a key link in the movement of timber, agricultural

products and people across Francois Lake. Our government has committed to

transfer control to a private operator who will be obliged to continue toll-free

service at existing service levels.

Can the

Minister of Transportation outline the request-for-proposal process for the

Francois Lake ferry and tell us when she anticipates a new operator will take

its place?

Hon. J.

Reid: The Francois Lake ferry service is very important to residents,

industry and commercial interests in that area. There is a request for proposals

right now. Those proposals have to be submitted by May 9. Part of that request

is that the successful proponent would have to provide an 18-hour-a-day,

seven-day-a-week toll-free service but also be able to provide for the

additional capacity that is necessary to service the industry and the commercial

interests.

[1430]

The

proponent, we're suggesting, would have to be able to provide that service by

January 1, 2004. We will receive the proposals by May 9. We'll be able to assess

them, and then we will be able to assign the successful proponent.

[End

of question period.]

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Plant: I move Motion 94 in the orders of the day, standing in the name of

the Minister of Finance and House Leader.

Mr.

Speaker: Motion 94 has been called, hon. members. Leave will be required to

call Motion 94. Without disturbing the priorities of any other motions, shall

leave be granted?

Leave

granted.

Motions on Notice

REMOVAL OF JOHN VAN DONGEN

FROM SELECT STANDING COMMITTEES

Hon. G.

Plant: Leave having been granted, I move Motion 94 standing in the name of

the Minister of Finance in the orders of the day.

[That the Honourable John van Dongen, MLA be removed from the Select

Standing Committee on Crown Corporations and the Select Standing Committee on

Public Accounts.]

Motion

approved.

[ Page 6151 ]

POWERS OF

CROWN CORPORATIONS COMMITTEE

Hon. G.

Plant: I now move Motion 95 standing in the orders of the day in the name of

the Minister of Finance.

[That the Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations be

appointed to review the annual reports and service plans of British Columbia

Crown Corporations.

In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the

Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations, the Committee be empowered:

(

a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer

to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

(

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the

recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any

sitting of the House;

(

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and

(

d) to retain personnel as required to assist the Committee,

and shall report to the House on matters referred to the Committee during the

Third Session of the Thirty-seventh Parliament and the current session and as

soon as possible or following any adjournment, or at the next following

Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the

Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon

resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports

to the Legislative Assembly.]

Motion

approved.

REFERRAL OF REPORTS TO COMMITTEES

AND POWERS OF

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

Hon. G.

Plant: I move Motion 96 in the orders of the day, also standing in the name

of the Minister of Finance.

[1. That the reports of the Auditor General of

British Columbia deposited with the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly during

the Fourth Session of the Thirty-seventh Parliament be deemed referred to the

Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts, with the exception of the report

referred to in

section 22 of the Auditor General Act which is referred to the

Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, and in addition

that the following reports of the Auditor General of British Columbia be

referred to the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts:

Managing Contaminated

Sites on Provincial Lands (December 2002);

Review of Estimates Related to Vancouver's

Bid to Stage the 2010 Olympic Winter Games and Paralympic Winter Games

(January 2003);

Building Better Reports: Our Review of the

2001/02 Reports of Government (January 2003);

Follow-up Report on TransLink (December

2002);

Follow-up Report on Managing Interface

Fire Risks (November 2002); and

Follow-up Report on Earthquake Preparedness

(July 2002).

2. That the Select Standing Committee on Public

Accounts be the committee referred to in sections 2, 6, 7, 10, 13 and 14 of

the Auditor General Act .

In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the Select Standing

Committee on Public Accounts, the Committee be empowered:

(

a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer

to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

(

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the

recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any

sitting of the House;

(

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and

(

d) to retain personnel as required to assist the Committee,

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any

adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit

the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during

a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the

Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.]

Motion

approved.

POWERS OF FINANCE AND

GOVERNMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE

Hon. G.

Plant: I move Motion 97 standing in the name of the Minister of Finance in

the orders of the day.

[ That the Select Standing Committee on

Finance and Government Services be empowered:

1. To examine, inquire into and make recommendations with respect to the

pre-budget consultation report prepared by the Minister of Finance in

accordance with

section 2 of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act

and, in particular, to:

(

a) Conduct public consultations across British Columbia on proposals

and recommendations regarding the provincial budget and fiscal policy for the

coming fiscal year by any means the committee considers appropriate, including

but not limited to public meetings, telephone and electronic means;

(

b) Prepare a report no later than November 15, 2003 on the results of

those consultations; and

2. (

a) To consider and make recommendations on the annual reports, rolling

three-year service plans and budgets of the following statutory officers:

(

i) Auditor General;

(ii) Chief Electoral Officer;

(iii) Conflict of Interest Commissioner;

(iv) Information and Privacy Commissioner;

(

v) Ombudsman;

(vi) Police Complaint Commissioner; and,

(

b) To examine, inquire into and make recommendations with respect to other

matters brought to the Committee's attention by any of the Officers listed in

2 (

a) above.

3. That the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services be

the committee referred to in sections 19, 20, 21 and 23 of the Auditor General

Act and that the performance report in

section 22 of the Auditor

General Act be referred to the committee.

[ Page 6152 ]

In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the

Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, the committee

shall be empowered:(

a) to appoint of their number one or more subcommittees

and refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the committee;

(

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned and during

any sitting of the House;

(

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and

(

d) to retain personnel as required to assist the committee;

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any

adjournment or at the next following session, as the case may be, to deposit

the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during

a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the

Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.]

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Plant: I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members we will be

debating the estimates of the Ministry of Attorney General and treaty

negotiations office.

[1435]

Committee of Supply

The

House in Committee of Supply B; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:36 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

ATTORNEY GENERAL AND MINISTRY

RESPONSIBLE FOR TREATY NEGOTIATIONS

On vote 11:

ministry operations, $379,990,000.

Hon. G.

Plant: I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to begin the estimates

debate on behalf of the Ministry of Attorney General and the treaty negotiations

office. I think, for the convenience of members, we'll begin with the discussion

of the estimates of the treaty negotiations office, and I have a few remarks to

make as an introduction to that discussion.

I really am

pleased to have the opportunity to rise today and speak to and in support of the

budget of the treaty negotiations office. This office carries out a very

important role in helping us all as legislators and helping government promote

economic renewal in British Columbia.

I wanted to

look back just a little bit on the year past as a way of setting the stage for

what I hope will happen in the fiscal year that we have now embarked upon. As

all members know, in the spring of 2002 we kept commitments that we had made

during the 2001 election campaign by conducting a provincewide referendum to

provide British Columbians with the opportunity to help guide the province's

approach to treaty-making. We asked the people of British Columbia to think

about what they wanted to achieve from the treaty process.

It was my

view and it was the view of government — and I know it was in particular the

view of the Premier — that notwithstanding the efforts that people had made

over the course of nearly a decade to engage the public in a discussion about

the treaty process, the public felt cut out of that discussion. The public had

not been engaged in the treaty process in the way that I think is and was a

necessary precondition to success in that process. It was our view that the

treaty process, in fact, would not succeed and will not succeed if we don't

manage to engage the public.

The

referendum achieved that objective and more. Over the course of the spring we

had a vigorous public discussion about some difficult and important issues in

British Columbia. We asked the people of British Columbia to provide government

with a mandate on a set of principles that would guide the province in the

treaty negotiation process.

recognized going into that discussion that British Columbia is only one of three

parties to each treaty negotiation. Each party brings its own vision to the

table, and we as the government of British Columbia have an obligation to ensure

that when we speak at the treaty table, we have some sense of what it is that

the people of British Columbia want us to achieve on their behalf. That

objective took the form of the statements of principle in the referendum ballot

that was circulated as part of the referendum conducted last spring.

[1440]

It was a

novel exercise in direct democracy. I don't know that there have been any other

examples of a referendum conducted by mail-in ballot on a provincewide basis

outside the election cycle, particularly when it was not a simple yes or no

question. This referendum asked people to think about principles. It asked them

to think about what they wanted their government to achieve on their behalf at

the treaty table.

We received

over three-quarters of a million returned mail-in ballots. The eight statements

of principle that were on the referendum ballot were, in fact, overwhelmingly

endorsed by the public. They have been adopted by government and represent a

framework that we will take forward as we move through the months and years to

come.

It's

important to remind members that the referendum was conducted on the basis that

we were committed to the treaty process — that we intended to use the

referendum to reinvigorate the treaty process. In the months since, we have

moved forward on those commitments. We have endeavoured to build upon the

momentum that was created by the referendum, by the heightened public awareness

and by the recognition that this was and is an important task and public policy

responsibility of government.

In the

months since the referendum we have worked hard to bridge the gap that exists

among the positions of the different parties in the process — to try and see

if we can, each of us at each table where progress is possible, take the steps

that are necessary to

[ Page 6153 ]

find the common ground that we need if we're going to achieve agreement.

Really, we have, I think, made great strides towards that. It's hard. It's

difficult work, but I think it is time — it may be past time — after

virtually a decade of work, to see if we can actually conclude the agreements

that the treaty process was originally intended to produce.

Let me

review some of the things that we have been doing to try to help achieve the

outcome of negotiated agreements. Communications and consultation continue to be

important responsibilities of government. We had a useful public conversation in

the referendum, but the referendum was never intended to be the end of that

conversation. In fact, we are anticipating at least 50 meetings with local

governments and stakeholders about treaty issues in the fiscal year '03-04. We

will continue to communicate. We will continue to consult. We will continue to

listen.

We've also

recognized that it's time to focus the energy and resources that we bring to the

treaty process. We've looked across the landscape of some 42 tables that are

officially or formally involved in the B.C. Treaty Commission process. We've

asked ourselves whether there are some tables where the promise of success is

more real in the short term. We've reorganized the treaty negotiations office to

focus our resources on those tables where we believe there is opportunity for

early success. We call those the "breakthrough tables." We are, I

believe, making good progress with six first nations at breakthrough tables

around the province.

One of the

commitments in the treaty negotiations office service plan is a commitment to

conclude four to six treaty-related agreements in fiscal '03-04. Those

agreements may include full agreements-in-principle. They may include

sector-specific agreements or land protection agreements. The challenge and the

opportunity have been to work within the framework established by the referendum

principles, to recognize that all parties need to be committed to the give and

take of negotiation and be prepared to agree to reasonable compromises.

Our

approach has been to be flexible and creative, to look for new solutions to old

problems and to take a new approach that says we are willing to open the door to

discussions about some issues that have, for one reason or another, been kept

off the tables. We hope for and, frankly, expect the same kind of creative and

flexible thinking from our partners in these negotiations — both Canada and

the first nations with whom we are negotiating.

[1445]

One of the

issues that we have said we are willing to explore is revenue-sharing. In fact,

members of this House will have heard reference to revenue-sharing in the throne

speech. They will also see an allocation for revenue-sharing in the '03-04

budget that was tabled in the Legislature on February 18. British Columbians

need to work together if we are to build a strong provincial economy. We believe

revenue-sharing with first nations is a way to share the wealth of the province

and to create a common interest in economic development, a common interest

shared by first nations and non-aboriginal British Columbians that will build a

stronger economy for the benefit of all.

The issue

of certainty is another issue that has been a challenge for years at treaty

negotiations. We've said that it's time to take a new approach to achieving the

goal of certainty. We are in this process, in large measure, because it is time

to achieve certainty with respect to the ownership and management of the lands

and resources of British Columbia — certainty in terms of what aboriginal

rights and title mean and certainty in terms of what the Crown's rights and

title mean.

The best

guarantee of certainty in a treaty is found in the quality of the relationship

the treaty helps to establish, so we have made the decision that it's time for

British Columbia to look for different legal techniques to achieve certainty. We

do so acknowledging that it will be important to ensure that treaties clearly

define the rights and responsibilities of all parties. In fact, that may be the

most important building block of certainty. If we have a clear understanding of

our rights and responsibilities, we can move forward to build a new relationship

based on that clear understanding.

Here is

perhaps the way of expressing what's new about this approach. I believe that we

can achieve the certainty we need without requiring the extinguishment of

aboriginal rights or the use of the legal technique known as cede, release or

surrender. In outlining these things, I'm saying, essentially, what we're

prepared to do to try to help reach agreement, recognizing that we are still

engaged in the hard task of negotiating agreements. Time will tell, of course,

if these new approaches achieve the success we hope they will achieve.

Let me move

on to another issue: self-government. There's been a lot of talk about

self-government. In particular, how can we move forward with an approach to

self-government that respects the interests of all British Columbians? We have

some pretty important objectives as government. These objectives are expressed

in the referendum principle that the public supported in the referendum campaign

last summer. Those objectives include some pretty obvious and practical

objectives.

Government

structures and relationships need to be flexible. Whether they are first

nations, municipal governments, provinces or federal governments — wherever

you look — governments need to be financially accountable and democratically

responsible. We think we can make progress on achieving these objectives with

respect to self-government, and we can do it in a way that is respectful of

first nations interests while ensuring that the broader public interest of the

people of British Columbia is satisfied.

Another

issue where we've made steps towards taking a new approach is the issue of

reconciliation. That is the recognition that we have much to regret in the

history of our relations with aboriginal peoples in this part of North America.

In fact, our history does not

[ Page 6154 ]

leave us much to be proud of in that relationship. It's time to acknowledge

that reality, and it's time to move forward in a way that says we can work to

reconcile our differences, to acknowledge the past and to see if we can build a

new relationship based on mutual respect.

acknowledge, as with all of these objectives, that there are challenges here.

It's not up to one party to a relationship to say that the relationship is

working. All parties have to be convinced that the relationship is working. We,

for our part, are willing to take the steps towards building that new

relationship based on mutual respect. I think we'll see many opportunities for

government, over the months to come, to pursue this theme of reconciliation in a

meaningful way.

[1450]

One

specific initiative, which is part of the overall responsibility of the treaty

negotiations office but is not necessarily simply a manifestation of the treaty

negotiation project, is the economic measures fund. Economic development for

first nations is a critically important objective of government. It should not

wait on hold while we negotiate comprehensive treaties. There is work to be done

now and work that can be done now. With respect to economic development, we have

committed $10 million a year over four years to establish an economic measures

fund that will enhance the participation of first nations in the economy of

British Columbia.

To date

some 57 agreements are being implemented, with a further 54 in active

negotiation. We believe we will achieve the service plan objective of ten to 15

significant agreements in the fiscal year '03-04. The list of these agreements

is long, but among the major agreements are some major forestry projects,

shellfish initiatives, irrigation schemes, independent power projects, and oil

and gas training programs. These offer great potential to ensure that aboriginal

British Columbians have an equal opportunity to participate in the development

of the economy of British Columbia.

These

projects will help develop the important skills and tools needed to take

advantage of economic activity. They are more broad than simply training, and I

can assure the members of this House and this committee that we will evaluate

the results of these projects and measure our successes. But I believe that

there will be successes and that we can use those successes as the platform to

build further successes.

The fund

provides opportunities for first nations to be constructive, full participants

in the economic life of British Columbia. That is the key to the new

relationship, in my view. Rather than seeing ourselves through tired old lenses

that divide the world into us and them, it's time to determine how we can

reconfigure a relationship across a barrier that has existed for too long and to

rebuild a relationship based on working together, on seeing ourselves as

partners in the joint enterprise of building a stronger province.

I think

there are opportunities across the range of economic development, whether it's

oil and gas or aquaculture or forestry or tourism or ski resorts. Wherever it is

and whatever the initiative, we have a great opportunity to build a prosperous

future together. It's an opportunity not without challenges, and we are mindful

of the challenges. But, frankly, I am somewhat hopeful that we are on the verge

of taking some positive steps forward in the months to come. I look forward to

the opportunity to discuss these issues as members may be interested in them.

Hon. G.

Cheema: Mr. Chair, may I have leave to make introductions, please?

Leave

granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. G.

Cheema: I have here one very important member of the Sikh community from the

lower mainland, Mr. Karm Singh, and he's accompanied by a few guests from

outside the country: Mr. Sewa Singh, Surinder Kaur, Dalip Kaur, Ranjit Kaur,

Sukhjit Kaur and Varinder Singh. Mr. Singh is a very well-respected member of

the community, and I would like the House to please make them very welcome.

Debate Continued

MacPhail: I've been in and out, but did the Attorney General introduce his

staff?

Hon. G.

Plant: I'm pleased to do that. I'm joined by Philip Steenkamp, the deputy

minister of the treaty negotiations office. To his right is Ingrid Fee, who is

the director of the corporate services branch. Behind me is Jim Crone, who is

the assistant deputy minister of management services for the overall ministry.

[1455]

MacPhail: I will start, by agreement. We'll do the treaty negotiations

first.

Let me just

outline part of the direction…. Well, no, this is the direction that I'm

taking on treaty negotiations. I hope we can actually have a discussion — I

will certainly try, Mr. Chair — that moves toward understanding a positive

direction on these matters.

I have said

on the record many times that I thought the referendum was costly and

politically divisive. However, the government went through with it, and it was

widely touted by this current government as a way to revitalize the treaty

process and get the public involved. I had an opportunity to examine the remarks

of the current Attorney General in his reply to the Speech from the Throne

earlier this year, where those very points were made by the Attorney General —

that it was a way to revitalize the treaty process and get the public involved.

My latest

accounting from Elections B.C. of an estimate of what the referendum cost is

that they're ballparking it around $7.5 million. It's the latest estimate; the

final figures are not in yet. That's how much so far,

[ Page 6155 ]

we know, was spent to consult British Columbians and to ask the eight

principles.

I want to

look at that in the context of what the Attorney General has been commenting on

publicly around the Snuneymuxw potential agreement-in-principle. Then I also

want to talk about the cutting of funding to the treaty negotiations office.

Then my final point in this area will be around what actions have flowed from

the expression of regret that was given in the Speech from the Throne.

I want to

use as a point of discussion the Snuneymuxw Nanaimo treaty table. I know it

hasn't reached the point of agreement-in-principle yet, but it is being widely

reported, and the Attorney General has engaged — at least twice that I know of

— publicly in the media on that matter.

If I can,

I'll just put it in context for general discussion. The report coming through

CBC is that the land claims settlement of the Snuneymuxw contains the following:

exclusive fishing rights, revenue sharing, taxation powers in the form of

property taxes, a bigger reserve — probably 20 times more land made up of some

5,000 hectares, some of which is reported to be private land — resource rights

and a form of self-government. The Attorney General, in discussing this

potential agreement-in-principle, as I heard it, talked about the need for

flexibility in terms of solving land claims issues.

I am a

champion of resolving land claims and reaching treaties — a huge champion.

There is only one way of reaching a treaty, and that is for all parties to

agree. I champion that. I do want to see what the provincial government's role

is in reaching treaties, given the referendum. The referendum set out, very

explicitly, eight principles and said to British Columbians that the ministry

would abide by those principles during negotiations.

Here's what

people voted for — not me, but people did. Eighty-five percent of the people

agreed that private property should not be expropriated for treaty settlements.

However, there are reports that the Snuneymuxw settlement includes some private

lands. I'm wondering whether the Attorney General could clarify: does the

concept of willing buyer, willing seller apply, or has there been a shift on the

part of the province?

Hon. G.

Plant: I welcome the member's commitment to the treaty process. She made a

number of comments in the course of that last contribution to the debate,

leading up to a fairly specific question.

[1500]

The

referendum principles are hugely important to us as we move forward to achieve

agreement at the tables — particularly the six breakthrough tables, but all of

the tables where negotiations are taking place in British Columbia.

With

respect to the first principle, we were always very clear with the public

throughout the referendum campaign that the focus of the first principle was to

guide government to avoid expropriating property, but that within the scope of

that principle, a government would be free to negotiate the acquisition of

private property on a willing seller, willing buyer basis. There are parts of

British Columbia where Crown land is scarce. There are other parts of British

Columbia where we believe that there will be ample Crown land to do what needs

to be done to provide a mutually agreeable land base for first nations. Our

preference will always be to use Crown land as the land currency in the treaty

process.

But on the

east coast of Vancouver Island — thanks to the actions of predecessors

creating the railway grant and things like that — there really is very, very

little Crown land available. So we have looked at the acquisition of private

property as a tool to help us achieve agreement in Nanaimo — but only on a

willing seller, willing buyer basis — and that is, in my view, completely

consistent with the referendum principle.

MacPhail: When I was debating the Forestry Revitalization Act with the

Minister of Forests, I raised some concerns brought forward by first nations. It

is epitomized by the Carrier-Sekani position — but certainly much broader than

Carrier-Sekani — about a 20 percent takeback of Crown lands that was being

done outside of the treaty-making process. I asked at the time, and the Minister

of Forests replied: "Don't worry. The takeback would resolve the first

nations issues around obtaining Crown land that had forest values on it." I

also raise the issue that: why wouldn't there be a principle to resolve first

nations treaty issues, in terms of forested lands, of a concept of willing

buyer, willing seller? For instance, any company holding tenure could enter into

willing buyer, willing seller.

The

Minister of Forests said — I'm not going to ask the Attorney General to

justify the Minister of Forests' comments, because he would have to take time to

look them up — that this would bring greater certainty. Well, we do know —

and I'm sure the Attorney General has had time to see how this issue of proper

allocation of forest land resources is not working at all — that the matter is

blowing up, particularly with the Carrier-Sekani in terms of perhaps going

forward with a boycott of B.C. wood products. Why was the principle of willing

buyer, willing seller not pursued in that area?

Hon. G.

Plant: Well, I am as interested as the member is in having a good discussion

about the work of the treaty negotiations office, but as I heard her question,

it was precisely a question that ought to have been directed at the minister

responsible for the forest revitalization legislation. The issues around the

approach that the government has taken with respect to the need to take back a

percentage of the major licences across the province are issues that the member

presumably has already had some opportunity to canvass with the Minister of

Forests and may have further opportunities in the future.

[1505]

It is

interesting that when we come again to the question of what we are doing in the

treaty negotia-

[ Page 6156 ]

tions office to attempt to reach agreement in treaty negotiations in a manner

that is consistent with the referendum principles, we're also guided by the

second principle, which is that we will, generally speaking, avoid interfering

with existing leases and licences, but we'll compensate fully when that

interference is unavoidable. That is certainly something we intend to continue

to do as we make the decisions necessary to try to achieve treaty settlements.

MacPhail: Perhaps I can make the link more directly for the minister as to

why I'm raising this matter. I've had my discussion with the Minister of

Forests, and I raise that only to let the Attorney General know. I've had my

discussion, and that was done last week. But the matter takes on new import

today, given the Carrier-Sekani's reported actions around wanting to institute a

Home Depot boycott plan because of the sweeping forest policy changes that

occurred outside of the treaty-making process and outside of any consultation

with the Carrier-Sekani.

What I

wanted to explore with the minister is that willing buyer, willing seller is a

concept that is being explored at the Snuneymuxw table, where there are limited

avenues available — i.e., limited Crown land. Why couldn't this approach be

taken to resolve not only the issues of treaty-making but changes in forest

policy that bring in first nations in an equal, fully consultative way to allow

for a willing buyer, willing seller approach to tenure?

Hon. G.

Plant: I would like to be more helpful than I can be. The member's

question…. I appreciate that she gave it a second shot, but as I heard her

second question, it was a question that ought to have been directed to the

Minister of Forests who, as she describes it, has been embarking on a forest

revitalization project that is — to quote her, I assume, quoting the minister

— "outside the treaty process." I mean, the member has an

interesting question, but it is not a question that I am going to be able to

assist in answering, because I'm not the minister responsible for implementing

the forest revitalization program.

I do hope

that as the minister moves forward with the forestry revitalization program,

there will in fact be opportunities for the minister and government to make

fibre and revenues available to first nations on a case-by-case negotiated basis

in keeping with the framework the minister will develop. I do believe that will

contribute to the general goal of economic development, which I certainly

support.

I'm also

fully mindful of the fact that the Carrier-Sekani apparently are not going to

publicly support the government's initiatives in that regard. I must say, in all

frankness to the member and to the members of the House, that as it happens, the

Carrier-Sekani table in the treaty process is a particularly unproductive table.

We don't seem to be able to find a way to build the ingredients of a productive

treaty negotiation with the Carrier-Sekani. In a way, I must admit I'm not all

that surprised that the Carrier-Sekani are expressing concerns about some other

aspect of government policy.

MacPhail: It does seem to be a bit surprising for a government that wants to

resolve treaties to exacerbate the difficulties at this particular table by the

forest revitalization policy. Perhaps I can just explain the link, and then

we'll leave it, because the Attorney General doesn't seem to…. Well, the

Attorney General can't answer the question.

[1510]

The

Carrier-Sekani singled out Canfor Corp., charging for a boycott. They're calling

for Home Depot to boycott wood and paper products from Carrier-Sekani's

traditional territory in B.C.'s northern interior. They're proceeding with

singling out Canfor for that boycott, charging that the wood it supplies to Home

Depot is stolen from Carrier lands and that that wood will be removed from being

a way to resolve their treaty.

So that's

how the link is. The first nations are saying that if they had been consulted

about the forest revitalization policy, they would have said that in their

traditional territories, this is a matter for the treaty-making tables, and we

can certainly discuss how this provincial government can reach its goal of

having a price for timber based on market through a willing seller, willing

buyer concept. Yet all of that is gone now, and in fact, a difficult

treaty-making table has grown even more difficult because of this government's

actions in those areas.

Back to the

referendum, 93 percent of people on the referendum agreed that hunting, fishing

and recreational opportunities on Crown land should be ensured for all British

Columbians. I actually believe that the law gives first nations hunting and

fishing rights, but there are reports out of the Snuneymuxw agreement that there

will be exclusive fishing rights. Could the Attorney General comment?

Hon. G.

Plant: Well, first of all, let me take advantage of the member's continuing

interest in the Carrier-Sekani table to offer members a bit more information

about what government has tried to do to build a constructive relationship with

the Carrier-Sekani tribal council over the past couple of years.

The member

herself may recall that when she was in government in January 2001, her

government gave provincial negotiators a mandate to negotiate in the interim

measures agreement with the Carrier-Sekani tribal council that included the

following: (1) a 100,000-cubic-metre timber allotment under a community forest

pilot agreement, (2) an attempt to seek 400,000 cubic metres of timber on a

voluntary basis from licensees, (3) an attempt to negotiate a consultation

protocol agreement to improve Carrier-Sekani tribal council participation and

input into forest planning and management — to summarize, upwards of half a

million cubic metres of timber.

Further to

that discussion, in April 2001, Canada, British Columbia and the Carrier-Sekani

tribal council

[ Page 6157 ]

signed a forestry bridging agreement that contained those commitments. A year

later, in April 2002, the Carrier-Sekani tribal council advised British Columbia

and Canada that they were not prepared to continue negotiations of an IMA —

that is, an interim measures agreement — on the basis of the timber volumes

set out in the forestry bridging agreement. The tribal council asked that B.C.

revise its mandate to provide it a direct award of half a million cubic metres

of timber per year.

B.C. then

reviewed its mandate and subsequently authorized provincial negotiators in

October of 2002 to do just that — to table an offer of half a million cubic

metres of wood per year for the term of the licences. This would have led to an

overall allocation of 1.5 million cubic metres of wood. In addition, the

province committed to providing half a million dollars per year for two years

for economic development related to forestry.

[1515]

On October

22 of last year the Carrier-Sekani tribal council wrote to the province

indicating that they had rejected the provincial offer and that they were

terminating the forestry bridging agreement. I am informed that since then, the

Ministry of Forests has been undertaking negotiations with individual bands

within the tribal council and on the third of March of this year apparently made

a direct award to one of those bands, the Saik'uz, of 450,000 cubic metres over

three years. There are discussions for short-term volume that are continuing

with other Carrier-Sekani tribal council bands.

Sometimes

it is easier to pay attention to the rhetoric and harder to keep your eyes

focused on the reality. I think the reality is that the government of British

Columbia has worked hard over the last couple of years, both when the member was

in office as government and also since the election under our leadership, to try

to make a significant volume of timber and other economic opportunities related

to forestry available to the Carrier-Sekani tribal council. We will continue to

work hard to do what we can to ensure that the aboriginal people who live in the

communities that are part of the Carrier-Sekani tribal council do have some

reasonable measure of access and opportunity to participate in the forest

economy.

The member

asked the question about referendum principle No. 3 — that hunting, fishing

and recreational opportunities on Crown land should be ensured for all British

Columbians. We are working hard at each of the tables to ensure that the AIP

provisions give effect to that principle. The issue of fish carries with it some

additional challenges because the fundamental constitutional responsibility for

managing the fish resources, particularly salmon, is federal, not provincial.

There are

some negotiated provisions in the proposed Snuneymuxw AIP that relate to

domestic fishing entitlements. Those are there to recognize the well-recognized

rights in respect of fish for food, ceremonial and social purposes. There are

also some provisions in the Snuneymuxw documents with respect to opportunities

to participate in commercial fishing.

There is a

part of the context of the Snuneymuxw negotiations which the member may be well

aware of, but which may not be well known by all British Columbians. In the

1850s the Crown colony entered into a series of agreements with 14 first

nations, mostly in southern Vancouver Island. These are usually referred to as

the Douglas treaties. The Douglas treaties contain provisions that protect the

right to carry on hunting and fishing activities as formerly, and the provisions

of those documents have been recognized as treaties by the court. They enjoy

constitutional recognition, and they are part of the context for the negotiation

about fish issues in Nanaimo.

I'm pretty

sure that the Snuneymuxw position with respect to those issues — that is to

say, their starting position — is that they have a largely unrestricted right

to exploit all fish resources for sustenance and commercial purposes. The AIP

goes a considerable distance towards putting boundaries on that claim. There is

no exclusive priority right to fish commercially recognized in the AIP, but I

recognize that the parties have more work to do as we get to AIP — then, more

importantly, as we work beyond AIP to try to get the final agreement to ensure

that we have arrangements with respect to fishing rights that respect not only

the rights of the Snuneymuxw but the important position of the recreational,

commercial, sport and processing sectors of the fish industry that also have a

huge stake in the fish resources of British Columbia.

[1520]

MacPhail: I'm sorry. Did I miss something? Is the Attorney General

suggesting the Snuneymuxw treaty is being carved out of the old Douglas

treaties?

Hon. G.

Plant: When the member was in government, her government agreed that the….

I'm not certain of the details at the moment, whether that was a joint agreement

that involved the Treaty Commission and the federal government. At any rate, the

government and the Treaty Commission accepted a statement of intent from the

Snuneymuxw first nation, and there have been treaty negotiations taking place

with the Snuneymuxw for eight years or so. One of the issues that has been on

the table in those negotiations for a pretty long time, perhaps from the outset,

has been how to achieve reconciliation, clarity and certainty around Douglas

treaty rights, which the Snuneymuxw are participants in, as part of the work of

seeking a modern, comprehensive agreement.

MacPhail: Okay, but I think the Attorney General is trying to put up — I'm

not sure if it's a defence or an explanation — an explanation of why exclusive

fishing rights are being discussed at all at this table.

There has

been a change in government, and the change in government held a referendum. The

minister is quite right that the matter of exclusive fishing rights and the

relationship between the Snuneymuxw and the Douglas treaties were put on the

table by the former B.C. government. However, there was a referendum in

[ Page 6158 ]

between by this government. What I'm trying to figure out is what this

government learned from the referendum, why it did it and what it means for the

people who participated in the referendum. One of the questions that the Liberal

government put on it said — and 93 percent of people agreed — that hunting,

fishing and recreational opportunities on Crown land should be ensured for all

British Columbians.

I checked.

The MLAs in the area covered by the Snuneymuxw agreement didn't go out and say:

"But by the way, you're excluded from this." I'm just trying to figure

out what the tens of thousands of people who voted yes in the referendum are

getting for that vote.

In the

referendum, 87 percent of people agreed that aboriginal self-government should

have the characteristics of local government with powers delegated from Canada

and British Columbia. Again, there are only reports, but the Attorney General

has commented publicly on this — that the Snuneymuxw deal will include a much

broader form of self-government than the characteristics of local government.

There are reports, locally anyway, that that first nations community will enjoy

powers much greater than those of a local government.

Hon. G.

Plant: The short answer to the two-part question is that what the people of

Vancouver Island and the Nanaimo area are going to get is, I hope, an

agreement-in-principle. If the agreement-in-principle is ratified on the basis

that is currently being examined by the first nation, by Canada and by the

province, they're going to get an AIP that gives, I think, pretty strong effect

to each of the eight referendum principles.

The member

may wish to characterize the principles as though they were ironclad guarantees,

but she will search the public record in vain for any statement by the

government that the referendum principles were anything but principles. They

were principles; they are principles. They are principles in the sense that they

are the things we take in to the negotiating table, because I believe it's

better to be negotiating from a platform of principle than to be negotiating

from a platform of expediency.

[1525]

When we are

negotiating, we also recognize there is sometimes a need for some give and take.

While I think it is important that we minimize that to the extent possible,

there will be some times and places where I will have to stand up and explain to

members of the House how it was that we did not achieve an agreement that

reflects any one of these eight principles in full. Thankfully, that is not the

occasion today. That is, the AIP we are hoping to ratify with the Snuneymuxw

does, in fact, maintain the principle that hunting, fishing, and recreational

opportunities on Crown land should be ensured for all British Columbians,

particularly in the way that the principle was consistently explained during the

referendum campaign.

Similarly,

I believe the provisions with respect to self-government that we are working on

negotiating with the Snuneymuxw will, in fact, have the characteristics of local

government and that they will include powers that are delegated from Canada and

British Columbia. In that respect, they will also be consistent with referendum

principle No. 6, while also ensuring — just as we have said consistently

throughout the piece — that aboriginal self-government will be real, that it

will be meaningful and that it will ensure that the Snuneymuxw people have the

tools they need to make the decisions they need to make in order to build a

stronger community. I have been consistent about that for as long as I've been

talking about this issue, and we continue to work to ensure that self-government

will, in fact, achieve those characteristics.

MacPhail: Well, the questions I'm asking are: what's different as a result

of the referendum? Clearly, the Attorney General is suggesting that the

referendum was only conducted on the basis of establishing some principles. It

is interesting to note how much he emphasizes that and that he is using the

language of flexibility.

Mr. Chair,

I hope that as people listen to this, they understand I am fully committed to a

treaty process that achieves aboriginal title, which is done in a way that

confirms aboriginal rights and that is fair and just. Many of these issues that

I'm raising right now about the Snuneymuxw agreement-in-principle — in fact,

all of them…. I'm glad the agreement-in-principle is moving in that direction,

but I do want to know how the achievement of this AIP meets the test of what

people voted for in the referendum.

Prior to

this government having a referendum that cost millions of dollars and was

divisive at the time, there were principles in place. There were negotiating

the government of B.C. and first nations. The referendum conducted by this

government tested a change in a couple of those principles, two of which I have

explored. So we'll just have to see whether, indeed, the agreement-in-principle

contains the direction that was in place prior to this referendum or whether the

agreement-in-principle actually meets the test of the 763,480 people who voted

in the referendum and whether there was really any point to the referendum.

The

Snuneymuxw will be an interesting example of what was achieved by the

referendum. I do know, having met with first nations leaders both at the band

level and at the provincial organizational level, that the referendum slowed

down negotiations almost to a stop for the better part of a year and that the

treaty referendum process was very divisive.

On the

treaty negotiations office, the Attorney General has said that he's committed to

achieving treaties. The minister has also said that he wants to fast-track

treaty talks. From reading the Estimates , I understand that resources

provided for negotiations are being cut by almost $3 million in this budget.

What impact will these reductions have on the treaty negotiating process?

[1530]

Hon. G.

Plant: Thank you to the member for the question.

[ Page 6159 ]

inherited a stalled treaty process, and I think the last 22 months of activity

has represented and constitutes evidence that as a government, we have done what

I think needed to be done to reinvigorate this treaty process. We engaged in an

important public discussion.

I accept

the member's challenge to ensure that as we achieve success, if we achieve

success, we can measure the successes at the treaty table against the elements

of the public discussion in the form of the eight referendum principles. As we

do that, I know the member will be as happy as I am to ensure that we discuss

all eight principles, not just the two or three that are of particular interest

to her this afternoon. I think that when they examine the eight principles as a

whole — and I know people will do that — they'll see that we have actually,

I think, made some real progress at treaty negotiations in relation to some

particular issues where negotiations appear to have stalled.

But the

fact, also, is that we have not actually achieved final agreements. Nor do we as

yet have in place right now in British Columbia any formally ratified

agreements-in-principle, so we have work to do. That work is being done by the

treaty negotiations office. Admittedly, it's with a reduction in the budget for

the negotiations side of the ministry of approximately $3 million, but I think

we have in place a streamlined tool for achieving government's goals that can,

in fact, do the job we need to do.

Among other

things, in the course of reconfiguring the ministry or the office within the

larger ministry to ensure that we can continue to do the work it has to do,

we've protected all of the chief negotiator positions and the majority of our

negotiator positions, because they are the people we rely on to do the work at

the tables to produce the results.

As we

continue this work, we are still looking at different ways of doing business.

There seems to be a part of this business that involves an awful lot of travel.

We're trying to look for ways to expand teleconferencing or video conferencing

as a tool for doing some of the business that is often done face to face.

I may

actually have misstated. I think I said we retained all the negotiators. We kept

six chief negotiator positions and 21 of the 24 negotiator positions. But it's

part of this to recognize that when I talked about the breakthrough strategy —

the focus on the six tables — that does involve a deliberate allocation of

resources to ensure that we are putting a lot of effort into the six tables and,

frankly, perhaps a little bit less effort at some of the tables where, in my

view, there isn't any serious prospect of significant progress in the near

future.

MacPhail: The Attorney General's ministry is reducing its treaty settlement

and implementation costs to $4.7 million. By my calculation that's a $15 million

cut. What's the justification for that cut? I assumed this was the money that

would actually smooth the way to settlements.

[1535]

Hon. G.

Plant: I just want to check the numbers, but I think that's right. The

reduction in treaty settlement and implementation costs from $20.666 million to

$4.701 million is a reduction of just about $16 million. That is a reduction to

McLeod Lake stumpage payments of just over $15 million as a result of the fact

that much of the lands identified for settlement purposes have been transferred

to Canada. There is also a minor adjustment to the Nisga'a final agreement

interest and amortization payment schedule. In effect, both of those numbers are

accounting entries rather than meaningful reductions in transfer payments or

payments of the nature that the member implied in her question.

MacPhail: The minister has already referred to the fact that there's been a

cut in the treaty negotiations office FTEs — the staff. My calculation is that

there were 124 FTEs and that there will now be 85. It's a reduction of about a

third of the staff.

Can the

minister — sorry, he went by this fairly quickly — explain the assignment of

that staff? A corollary question to this is that on the service plan, the

ministry has set out a goal of reaching 16 to 24 agreements with first nations

by '05-06. What will be the assignment of this reduced staff, and how will they

be assigned to reach that goal of 16 to 24 agreements?

Hon. G.

Plant: I'll deal with the first part of that first. In fiscal '02-03 there

were 39 positions eliminated through voluntary departures, early retirements and

workforce adjustment. That reduction led to a restructuring of the office. It

was actually, I think, obviously a difficult process for many people involved in

it, but in another way it was a welcome opportunity to rethink how the TNO was

organized.

What

happened, among other things, was that two divisions that existed within the

office were merged into one. All of the administrative support positions were

consolidated into one branch. In effect, there's a bit less jurisdictional

box-building and a bit more sharing across the office of staff and staff

resources.

At the

senior level — the deputy minister and the assistant deputy minister — there

is now just one ADM; there were two. At the senior level there's much more

strategic thinking around the deployment of resources to achieve results. As

opposed to having departments where people worked away within the four corners

of a workplan that may or may not have been attached to the prospect of success,

the office as a whole is now functioning in a more integrated way, I think, to

try to focus on achieving some real successes. Resources are more flexibly

available, and they are in fact deployed more flexibly and strategically.

The targets

that the member talked about, I think, break down into at least a couple of

components. The '03-04 target in the service plan for the number of significant

treaty-related agreements is four to six. A separate target is the number of

significant agreements focusing on economic priorities. There the target for

'03-04 is ten to 15. The member is right that the first target increases over

the next couple of years up to between six and nine. By the time we get to

'05-06, we are collec-

[ Page 6160 ]

tively expected to produce between 16 and 24 agreements of different kinds.

I think we

actually are ahead of

schedule in terms of the agreements that we have already

been able to achieve for the economic measures fund. When it comes to focusing

more closely on the treaty process, we also think we have had some successes.

I'll offer this retrospectively. I know the member's question was prospective,

but let me illustrate how this works retrospectively.

[1540]

For '02-03

the service plan target for the number of significant treaty-related agreements

was three to four, and we did achieve three agreements. We achieved a land

protection agreement with the Yale first nation. We achieved a treaty-related

measure agreement with the Snuneymuxw on the acquisition of two fee simple

properties. We also achieved success, at the least at the negotiator level, in

producing the elements of the AIP that is being examined by government for

ratification in Snuneymuxw.

I think

when we look forward in the year we're now engaged in, we will be able to meet

the higher target we set for ourselves, and two years from now the still-higher

target. I think we will be able to achieve that provided, of course, that my

hopes are realized with respect to the work we are doing at the breakthrough

tables, where we are hard at work now.

MacPhail: Do the various tables know where they fall, either fast-tracked or

not? Can the minister provide examples of each?

Hon. G.

Plant: We don't have these things put into formal categories or boxes,

partly because we do try to be flexible, and needs and opportunities sometimes

change. But I did speak earlier about the idea of breakthrough tables, and this

— I should be clear — is a term that we use. We don't go around asking other

people in Canada or the first nations if they necessarily want to be classified

or called a breakthrough table. I think first nations that are in the process

are just working to achieve agreements at whatever pace they can. But for our

part, the six tables where we think there is a chance or — maybe better than a

chance — an opportunity for early success are Snuneymuxw, Sliammon,

Tsawwassen, Nuu-chah-nulth, Gitanyow and Lheidli-T'enneh.

MacPhail: Well, I don't want to be cheeky, but Snuneymuxw is being counted

twice, in '03-04 and '02-03. I thought the minister said that as one of his

three achievements for '02-03, Snuneymuxw was on that.

Page 25 of

the service plan. I was just looking at it, because the Attorney General has

made it clear to all of us who are listening that principles are just

principles. But page 25 of the service plan says this: "Performance

measures indicate that 100 percent of negotiated agreements are to reflect the

referendum principles endorsed by British Columbians in a referendum." So

does that still stand?

Hon. G.

Plant: As I said earlier, I think that the proposed AIP in Nanaimo is, in

fact, an agreement that reflects the referendum principles. I am very

comfortable to have this as a continuing target for me and the work that the TNO

does over the course of the three years of this service plan.

MacPhail: Again, we'll see.

The service

plan also states that the ministry intends to reduce the number of incidents

involving direct action and blockades by first nations. We've already discussed

the Carrier-Sekani situation, where there's actually a direct action of a

boycott now occurring because of the government's forest policy. Can the

minister explain how he intends to accomplish that goal?

[1545]

Hon. G.

Plant: One of the things we do in the treaty negotiations office is work in

concert with other ministries. We attempt to be thoughtful in our management of

issues as they arise and respond to incidents that occur from time to time in a

way that attempts to minimize their impact, bring them to early resolution —

hopefully a successful resolution. Broadly speaking, my hope is that by

achieving some success in the treaty process, we will reduce some of the sources

of friction that exist in British Columbia. In fact, if you look back over the

last year, I would have to say that the incidence of litigation certainly hasn't

gone down, but I think there's been a significant reduction in the incidence of

direct action and blockades. I know that the member is very concerned about the

threats that she hears from the Carrier-Sekani with respect to consumer

boycotts, and I must say that I don't think those threats are, frankly, terribly

constructive in terms of making a positive difference in anybody's lives. But we

will certainly do what we can to manage those issues as they arise.

decided we would put in the service plan, as a measure of the success of the

work we're doing, some reference to the incidence of litigation and the

incidence of blockades as a sort of a test against whether or not — viewed

from the perspective of the province as a whole — we're having some success in

managing our relationship as government with first nations in a way that results

in constructive resolution of issues as opposed to lawsuits or blockades.

There are

some specific initiatives that we have underway. In fact, there are a number of

them. But to give some examples, so the member can…. I'll try to make this

concrete for the member's benefit. We have in place an alternate dispute

resolution protocol with the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. We have worked hard to

establish…. I won't say that they've been established yet, but we're in the

early stages of establishing what for want of a better term I'll call a rights

and title table or a forum for the Shuswap nation and also for the Treaty 8

nations.

The member

will see a connecting link, perhaps, among those three groups. None of those

three groups are in the formal treaty process, in the B.C. Treaty Commission

process, and there are a couple of things I

[ Page 6161 ]

could say about that. One is that one advantage of the treaty process under

the BCTC is that it does create a formal framework where the parties sit down

from time to time and talk about things. It at least means that everybody knows

there's a phone number of someone they can call if a problem arises.

The

tradition in British Columbia has been that there hasn't been the same ability

to connect across divides with those first nations that are not involved in the

current treaty process, so these initiatives are intended to try to provide a

framework within which there can be some dialogue on issues. I hope that if we

have that framework, it will allow us to reduce the risk that incidents will

blow up over time as a result of failed communication or lack of understanding

of the objectives of the different parties to issues that arise around the

province.

MacPhail: And will there be a tally posted or a monitoring of the direction

that blockading, direct-action incidents and lawsuits…? Will it be posted?

Hon. G.

Plant: When we report a year from now, we'll be reporting on the extent to

which we have or have not achieved success in respect of those two outcome

measures.

MacPhail: There's been an increasing emphasis, I'm told, on interim-based

measures as well as the institution of time-outs. We've discussed that a little

bit, the time-outs. Can the minister explain how these measures are influencing

the treaty negotiation process?

[1550]

Hon. G.

Plant: Let me speak first, if I may, about the idea of time-outs. Let me

provide the member with a bit of context. I think roughly a year and a half ago

the B.C. Treaty Commission issued a retrospective report — I think it was

called Looking Forward, Looking Back — that was a pretty thoughtful

analysis of how the treaty process was working and how it wasn't working.

The Treaty

Commission identified some suggestions for improvement or ideas for how either a

new approach could be taken to a particular issue or, in some cases, why the

parties ought to look back at the task force report from 1991 and bring back to

the centre of the discussion some issues that the task force had thought should

be front and centre but that perhaps had been left to the side of the road over

time. The Treaty Commission's report led to an initiative, which was supported

by the First Nations Summit Task Group, by Canada and by British Columbia, to

establish working groups of officials that would get together and continue to

explore ideas for how to improve the treaty process to see if there could be

some measure of agreement on some issues that might help speed things up or

achieve better results at the table.

One of the

issues that was identified — I'm pretty sure it was identified in the BCTC

retrospective report — was the idea of table assessments. That is, at each

table the three parties to a negotiation should be frank with each other about

their objectives and what they were achieving or not achieving and have a

dialogue about whether things were moving along at a pace that was useful. The

idea that the tables should conduct self-assessments produced sort of a second

idea, which is that if the three parties, through individual negotiation, each

agreed that in fact there was nothing productive happening in the formal treaty

negotiation process, they could agree to take a time-out from formal treaty

negotiations.

I think it

was always expected by the Treaty Commission that when the parties took a

time-out, they would do so on the basis that they would try to commit their

energy to some other project — specifically, try to find ways of exploring the

issues that were the reasons behind the lack of progress and see if those issues

could be resolved. The idea of time-outs, I think it's fair to say, was not well

received by the First Nations Summit Task Group, really, pretty much at any

point in the process. After some discussion including a discussion that

attempted to see if there was something else you could call it that didn't sound

quite so dramatic, the principals — that is to say, Canada, the First Nations

Summit and the province — for all intents and purposes, pretty well abandoned

the idea of anything like a formal time-out.

When I talk

about the strategic deployment of the resources within the treaty negotiations

office and the search for breakthrough tables, I'm not offering a formal

structure within which the province has abandoned negotiations at any table that

is in the treaty process. There are some tables in the process where the parties

don't meet very often. There may be a few tables where the parties don't even

meet once a year. They still meet, and if that's good enough for the parties,

then we're willing to continue to support that.

Those are

time-outs. I apologize, in a way, for probably a longer answer than the member

perhaps expected.

Let me say

something about the idea of interim measures. The first thing I want to say is

that for the purpose of this discussion, I'm going to try not to get trapped up

in acronyms and terminology, although for the purpose of organizing how

government spends money, sometimes acronyms and terminology are essential. There

are a variety of tools that we are using to try to build strong relationships

with first nations where that is an option, to create opportunities for economic

development, to accelerate the transfer of some benefits that are associated

with the treaty process, and to try and create certainty.

[1555]

We have

land protection measures. We negotiate economic measures under the economic

measures fund. There are treaty-related measures that sometimes involve land

protection and sometimes involve facilitating feasibility studies for this or

that. There are a variety of different kinds of agreements that are essentially

tools we are using, as government, to see if we can make some progress, broadly

speaking, in building

[ Page 6162 ]

better relationships without waiting until you get to final agreement in the

treaty process.

MacPhail: Thank you to the Attorney General. Recently we were informed that

the city of Delta is pulling out of the lower mainland treaty advisory

committee. I've heard the Attorney General comment on that. The mayor of Delta,

Lois Jackson, was actually quoted as saying that the mandate of the committee is

too broad, that the city's concerns regarding the negotiations between the

province and the Tsawwassen first nations would be better met if the city

actually had a direct voice in the treaty negotiating process. Can the minister

update us on what he is doing regarding the city of Delta's withdrawal and their

request?

Hon. G.

Plant: Well, the first thing I can report to the member is that I had a

meeting with Mayor Jackson and Councillor Campbell a week ago, I think, Friday.

That was a helpful meeting because it allowed the councillor and the mayor to

communicate directly face to face with me about some of the reasons behind the

decision Delta took to withdraw from the lower mainland treaty advisory

committee.

The lower

mainland treaty advisory committee is a very useful group, from my perspective.

It brings together representatives of municipal governments around the lower

mainland to try to offer input and advice to government about municipal and

related issues that arise at a variety of tables — not just Delta but all of

the tables in the lower mainland. I am very grateful for the time the LMTAC

people spend in providing input. We use it as a place we go to consult with

local governments about local government issues generally and about lower

mainland local government issues with respect to the treaty process.

Delta, I

think, was experiencing some frustration because a member of their city council

was the LMTAC representative to the province's treaty team in the Tsawwassen

negotiations. What that meant was that as the LMTAC representative to the

province's treaty team, they were subject to the confidentiality rules that

apply to members of the province's negotiating team. That, I think, operated in

a practical way as a restraint on the Delta rep's ability to go and communicate

to his or her fellow city councillors about what was up, what was happening,

what the issues were and what the ideas were for solving those issues. I think

it also acted as a bit of an impediment on that person's — whoever the

representative would have been from time to time — ability to communicate with

the people to whom they are democratically accountable as city councillors.

I think

it's also fair to say that Mayor Jackson does not see LMTAC as a very useful

group. On that point, I think the mayor and I will respectfully have to

disagree.

On the

other point, the issue of how we can make sure Delta gets information about what

is happening at the treaty table with Tsawwassen and how we can continue to

receive input from Delta to ensure that we can identify Delta's interests in a

way that allows us to try to advance them effectively at the treaty table, we

are working on how we can do that perhaps through another structure. I have said

publicly to the mayor, and I say it here again, that the province is committed

to listening to Delta and trying to give it the information it needs to help

provide input. We'll do the best we can to ensure that an eventual agreement is

respectful of the interests of the corporation of the city of Delta.

[1600]

MacPhail: Yes, and Delta, of course, was a member of that committee for

almost ten years, so they certainly speak with authority on that matter.

I'm

wondering whether the minister can update us on the status of negotiations with

the Tsawwassen first nation.

Hon. G.

Plant: The short answer is: we're close, but we're not there yet. We've made

good progress over the past few weeks. There was hope that there would be an

agreement, an AIP, reached by the end of March. But as we got close to that

deadline, I think the parties collectively recognized that the list of issues

where there was still difference was getting shorter, but the issues on the list

were getting harder. We are continuing to work hard to address those issues.

I'm

optimistic but cautious that we are within, I hope, some weeks of — certainly

not months away — achieving the outline of an agreement there that the

negotiators can present to their principals for ratification. But I have to say

that while progress has been pretty good lately, it's hardly surprising that the

last handful of issues are tough issues, and we're doing the best we can to

resolve them.

MacPhail: In this year's throne speech the government made a number of

commitments to first nations. One of those commitments was a three-year, $30

million economic measures fund. Where is that money coming from?

Hon. G.

Plant: The throne speech commitment, I think, represented a change over last

year. When the fund was announced about a year or so ago — and I have to admit

I don't have, readily at hand, the date when the fund was announced…. The fund

was originally announced as a three-year, $30 million fund — that is, $10

million a year over three years.

The throne

speech commitment represented an extension of the fund by one year so that it's

a $40 million fund over four years. I think there's a special allocation for

that in the budget. It is in vote 12 of the treaty negotiations office. It is

the appropriation described as "economic measures," where the amount

for '03-04 is $10 million. It's $10 million a year over the four years.

MacPhail: And the $4-odd million for implementation is over and above that?

Hon. G.

Plant: Yes.

MacPhail: How is this fund being administered?

[ Page 6163 ]

Hon. G.

Plant: It is not a fund where there are application forms available in

government agent offices across the province. Rather, it is what we call a

corporate fund. There's a framework that we follow for decisions. We have

identified some priority areas for disbursements under the fund — oil and gas,

forestry, aquaculture, the Olympics and tourism. I think they are the five

areas. I may not have got that exactly right.

[1605]

What

happens is that there is a deputy ministers committee relying upon the ideas

that come forward from line ministry officials and from other people. It's the

deputy ministers committee on natural resources and the economy. It is that

committee which is charged with the responsibility of approving projects and

which is responsible for the sort of strategic organization of the fund. We do

the day-to-day administration, and we in my office will be responsible for

leading the monitoring and evaluation of the results of these projects.

MacPhail: Are there any restrictions being put on first nations groups who

apply for funding under this program? Chief Stewart Phillip, president of the

Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, has claimed the first nations receiving funding

must agree not to assert their aboriginal rights on the ground or in the courts

while they're receiving funding. I've also heard that from the First Nations

Summit as well.

Hon. G.

Plant: I have to say that's not a correct statement of our view. I have to

say that it is difficult for government to build a constructive relationship

with a first nation that is suing you. As a general rule — not necessarily

universal, but as a general rule — we, frankly, don't think we should be in

the business of providing funding in this form while we're engaged in active

litigation with a first nation. Those things are also examined on a case-by-case

basis.

It's not

really even a fund where first nations, in the sense that the member used the

term in her question, "apply" for funds. It is a fund where we, inside

government, determine how we can make best use of the dollars to achieve the

objectives of the fund. Then we work with first nations to see if we can sit

down and negotiate agreements that will achieve the objectives of the fund for

government and for first nations.

I have to

say that it is also good policy for us as government, generally speaking, to

seek to build relationships through negotiated agreements where the parties are

willing to each bring something to the table. In some cases, what we ask first

nations to bring to the table, in return for our decision to make available a

particular opportunity or our decision to agree to a relationship on particular

terms, is their agreement to participate constructively in government referral

processes. Sometimes we ask for their agreement not to commence litigation

against government during the period of the agreement because, after all, the

agreement is intended in some way to represent or be evidence of a successful

relationship. It's sort of hard to pretend that you're having a successful

relationship with a first nation that is, as I say, suing you.

MacPhail: So how is Chief Stewart Phillip wrong? It seems to me he was

right, given the Attorney General's explanation just now.

Hon. G.

Plant: One thing I am not going to do in this debate is have a discussion

that involves my commenting on the member's characterizations of a statement by

a third party, including Chief Stewart Phillip.

MacPhail: That's not what I was asking the minister to do. I was asking him

where Chief Phillip was wrong. So that's disappointing. I would say that,

actually, the Attorney General's characterization of what qualities first

nations have to bring to the table in order to get access to the economic

measures fund are, as described by the Attorney General, exactly what Chief

Phillip said.

[1610]

I want to

go back. My last question is on a point…. I wasn't clear on the lower mainland

treaty advisory committee. I recall the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast

asking the minister a question about the lower mainland treaty advisory

committee fairly recently — well, last week — and the Attorney General said

that he's not funding that. Is that correct?

Hon. G.

Plant: The question the member is referring to was a written question on

notice from a councillor who, I think, may have been a member of the lower

mainland treaty advisory committee, and the question did relate to provincial

funding of the lower mainland treaty advisory committee. As I indicated in my

answer to that question, the province does not provide funding to the lower

mainland treaty advisory committee.

We actually

do not fund treaty advisory committees generally. What we are doing, though, is

— on a case-by-case basis, where we think there is a need and also the

prospect that the consultation is part of a discussion that might lead to a

treaty — looking at situations where we might individually fund a consultation

process involving local government and local government interests at a

particular table. But we're doing that on a case-by-case basis. We're not

providing sustaining funding to LMTAC.

MacPhail: Well, the lower mainland treaty advisory committee was funded.

When did that funding stop?

Hon. G.

Plant: Last year. For the benefit of the member, that was part of the

restructuring. We made some decisions about where provincial dollars could most

effectively be spent, particularly at a time when we are having to spend fewer

dollars. We were trying to make sure that we got the best value for the dollars

that we were spending.

While I

personally have a lot of admiration for the tremendous contribution made by

individuals across

[ Page 6164 ]

British Columbia to the various advisory committees, including regional

advisory committees and treaty advisory committees, it was also my observation

that to some extent those structures had become self-sustaining bureaucracies in

themselves and that it was probably a good time to take a step back and make

sure that where we were providing funding to assist in consultation, we were

doing it in a way that was most effective.

We had to

make some tough choices. We thought that it was very, very important to continue

to have a very effective and highly qualified team of negotiators in place. We

also thought it was very important that we continue to fund first nations

organizations, and in fact, negotiation support funding for first nations was

protected. But we did have to make the decision to reduce funding in some areas,

and accordingly we discontinued funding to LMTAC and to the other TACs and the

RACs.

MacPhail: The minister said that there will be decisions made on a

case-by-case basis. What's the anticipated decision time line for money flowing

to the lower mainland treaty advisory committee?

Hon. G.

Plant: I would have to say that I don't presently anticipate funding for the

lower mainland treaty advisory committee, although I don't slam the door for all

time on that. What we are doing is funding and assisting in a couple of parts of

the province where there are some specific tables considering local government

issues in the treaty context. One of those is in Prince George for the

Lheidli-T'enneh table. Another of those is in Nanaimo. I think there's one in

the Bulkley Valley.

MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I'll return when we're on to Attorney General issues.

[1615]

Nuraney: Treaty negotiations have, over the years and in the past decades,

been a real challenge to governments in the past, with virtually no results that

we have seen of any kind. In the meantime, as we have seen, these communities

have suffered enormous injustices to the point of their being driven to

despondency and decay.

It was very

encouraging this time around to notice in the throne speech that we heard at the

beginning of the session that there is going to be recognition and

reconciliation with the people of the first nations. This, to me, is a

significant milestone that we are witnessing in the history of our province.

From the earlier remarks of the Attorney General, it also seems that we are now

in the process of virtually turning the page. We have, I believe, now expressed

a genuine interest in arriving at resolutions and finding solutions to this

challenge that has been our biggest problem for many, many years in the past. I

would like the Attorney General, if I may, to elaborate a little bit more on

what kind of recognition and how far we are able to go towards reconciliation.

Hon. G.

Plant: Well, I appreciate the member's question. It is, frankly, a big

topic. I think it might be useful to spend a minute or two identifying some of

the work that has been done by members of this House on that issue over the last

half dozen years.

In 1996, I

guess, there was a select committee appointed to consider the Nisga'a

agreement-in-principle. It travelled the province, and it came back with a

report. One of the distinguishing features of that report — which was, I

think, a signal contribution by the members of the then opposition who were

members of that committee — was the recommendation that there be something in

the nature of an apology or an expression of regret offered by the government of

British Columbia as part of the treaty process, as part of building a new

relationship. Members of my party, the member's party, were part of that

discussion and really initiated that discussion half a dozen years ago.

Then about

a year and a half ago or so, when members of this House were assigned the task

as a special committee to go out and consult with British Columbians and to come

forward with recommendations about what the referendum questions should be, they

also came back with a recommendation that the government consider offering a

statement of regret as a step towards building a new relationship with first

nations. In a real sense, what we heard in the throne speech represents the

continuation and the development of some ideas that have been talked about on

our side of the House for a number of years.

I think,

though, that the throne speech clearly represents a significant expansion of the

commitment of government to try to pursue these ideas. These ideas have a number

of components. I think they include a willingness to acknowledge that the

history of our past relations is filled with occasions to be very, very

regretful of and that we need to acknowledge some of that pain as a part of what

we need to do to try to build a relationship going forward.

I don't

think we can deny that there is little to be proud of in the history of

aboriginal/non-aboriginal relations in British Columbia. I think there were some

isolated instances where things were interesting and constructive — and I've

studied the history a fair bit — but on the whole it's not a history that we

should be proud of. In a real sense, what we heard in the throne speech was an

acknowledgment of that fact and a commitment to try to move forward.

[1620]

As we move

forward, we're looking at reconciliation, but reconciliation is, as I said

earlier, a process that involves more than one person. It may be interesting if

there are two people in a dispute and one says, "I want to reconcile,"

but it doesn't become reconciliation until the other person becomes a party to

that process.

The reason

I make that point is because as we move forward as a government to look to

develop and expand the idea of reconciliation, it's actually not something we're

going to do by ourselves. It's something that is going to involve a discussion

with first nations. I think it's going to involve discussions with first nations

[ Page 6165 ]

at different levels. It has already involved some very introductory

discussions with the First Nations Summit task group. They are, in effect, the

spokespersons for those first nations in British Columbia that are in the treaty

process. They don't negotiate on behalf of those first nations, but they're a

very important conduit and spokesperson for the interests of first nations in

the treaty process. This conversation is starting to happen a little bit at that

level.

It's also

happening at treaty tables around the province, where we're looking for ways to

see what it is that we can do as government that acknowledges the past, that

recognizes the presence of aboriginal people on the landscape of what is now

British Columbia, that acknowledges aboriginal rights and title — in ways that

I think can be done and can be done meaningfully without necessarily creating

the spectre of endless litigation — and that can build the strong symbols of a

new relationship.

I think

there are some specific ideas that are worth looking at. I was part of what I

guess was called a repatriation ceremony awhile back, where some human remains

of ancestors of the Snuneymuxw first nation that had been taken from graves on

Snuneymuxw land a long, long time ago were returned to the Snuneymuxw in a

pretty emotional and important ceremony that, I think, is part of what we're

talking about here.

Similarly,

I think the Premier is on to something when he says it's time that we think

about whether or not we could engage in a little bit of renaming. The landscape

of British Columbia, as we know it, has place-names attached to it that are new,

but the landscape of British Columbia as it has been known by the people who

have lived here for hundreds or thousands of years before Europeans and others

arrived also had place-names. I think we can do something important by

recognizing those place-names.

How you do

that in a way that ensures we all respect each other and the fact that there are

now some new place-names that are just as important…. That may be a project

that requires a bit of work, but I think it's a project we should commit

ourselves to. I'm delighted that the Premier has said he is interested in

pursuing that, and I certainly want to do what I can to help advance that

project. If we were to know a little bit more about aboriginal place-names, we

might, as non-aboriginal persons — speaking for myself — start to know a

little bit more about the true history of our province in a way that I think

could help build relations.

[1625]

That's a

pretty high-level overview. We are looking at these issues at specific treaty

tables, and we are looking at them generally from the point of view of what we

can do as government to try to build a new relationship that's founded on mutual

respect. I think that's pretty important. I think it's important that I identify

that this is not a one-way street. We can't impose reconciliation, but I also

think it's important that I say that as we work towards developing these ideas,

we're not looking to make this a totally one-way conversation in any way. I

think the challenge we face is: how can we build a platform that everyone

recognizes is based on mutual respect? That's a pretty important element of what

we're doing here too.

Nuraney: Those words the Attorney General used about being a process of

mutual respect, I think, really go to the very core of the process itself. I

think, over the years, what had really happened was a deterioration of any trust

or confidence in the parties at the table. The attempt now to be able to bring

that effort — to say that there has to be a respect for each other — starts

with the recognition of the identity of peoples and the fact that the Attorney

General and the Premier are also, in the larger landscape, considering renaming

places so that there can be cultural identities and restitution, in a way, of

communities that have had enjoyment of those cultures in the past.

As we move

along towards this treaty process, I think one of the things that was neglected

over the years was that the concentration was entirely on the treaty

negotiations, and very little attention was paid to the needs of the communities

and the needs of the first nations at large. Examples would be in the matters of

health, in the matters of education and in the matters of social needs of these

communities, which were also ignored pending the treaty negotiations being

completed. It now seems to me that there is a conscious effort by this

government to separate these two issues. It seems to me that while treaty

negotiations are important in themselves, there is also a need to address some

of the challenges the first nations communities are facing. Could I have some

kind of explanation from the Attorney General that it is a conscious decision of

this government to address some of those needs pending the finality of the

negotiating process?

Hon. G.

Plant: I appreciate the question. In fact, that is our commitment. I think

we were pretty clear about that in the New Era document. There were ways

in which — over the past decade, at least, and perhaps longer — the treaty

process became in some ways an excuse for not dealing with the pressing problems

of the present in respect of health or education or economic development or a

range of social and economic issues.

The Premier

has been very active on this front. Among the things he has done is lead the way

to encourage and to take leadership in a series of meetings that have happened

every couple of months since the election — perhaps not quite that often —

with first nations leaders, usually the First Nations Summit task group and

other members of the summit, on a series of specific issues: education, health,

child welfare and connectivity — you know, making sure that aboriginal British

Columbia shares in the expansion of Internet access. We've talked about all of

those issues and, I think, in some cases have built good processes for

continuing the conversation about what we can do as a provincial government to

help make a difference in those areas.

[ Page 6166 ]

At the same

time and connected with that, ministers have embarked upon a variety of

initiatives which the member may want to pursue in the course of estimates

debates with my colleagues in cabinet with respect to issues like education and

child welfare, where we think there is something we can do as a province to do

something differently that will help make a real difference in how services are

received and delivered in aboriginal British Columbia and in improving outcomes

from those services.

[1630]

The member,

I'm sure, has heard the Minister of Education express what I think she would not

mind my calling a sense of frustration around the fact that aboriginal

achievement in the public school system lags behind non-aboriginal achievement.

That surely must be a priority for government to find ways to close that gap.

The

Minister of Children and Family Development has embarked upon a very ambitious

plan of organizing a way of delivering child-centred community services to first

nations that actually involves the province of British Columbia in making

decisions about those services — in government decisions around how those are

to be made. I think that is recognized as being a very constructive and

progressive step.

At the same

time, on the economic development front I think we are doing what we can to try

to make a difference. The economic measures fund is an example of that. The

Minister of Forests' direct awards legislation represents an example of this

House giving government a tool to try to make a real and meaningful difference

in the lives of some aboriginal people now, rather than waiting until the treaty

process is concluded.

[H.

Long in the chair.]

I don't

claim that these are initiatives are easy or that the path to success will be

straightforward and simple. On each of these fronts there are challenges, and

frankly, I think one of the challenges we all face as citizens talking about

these issues is that eternal challenge of listening to the voices and trying to

sort out the difference between those who are opposed and those who are not.

It's pretty easy to hear the voices of those who are opposed. Those voices are

usually accompanied by pretty strong adjectives. They're the kinds of adjectives

and adverbs that get newspaper headlines, and fair enough.

While we

talk about people who have some concerns, for example, about the economic

measures fund — and I recognize there are some people who have some concerns

about the economic measures fund — I think we owe it to ourselves to

acknowledge some of the early indicators of success in the use of those dollars.

The Tsay Keh Dene are parties to an agreement in forestry issues. There's a

northern interior guide-outfitter-training interim economic measure. The Doig

and Blueberry first nations in Treaty 8 country are partners in a project

involving Northern Lights College. The Tsleil Waututh, formerly known as the

Burrard Indian band, in the Vancouver area are participating in three different

initiatives — an ecotrust initiative, an initiative around Canada Place

marine….

I was at an

announcement involving the possibility of developing independent power

production in some fairly remote communities at the north end of Harrison Lake,

where they depend on a generator for electricity. That is not completely unique

in British Columbia. I'm sure the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine would love

to stand up and tell me about all the communities in his constituency where the

generator works some days and doesn't work every day. Really, to be an hour away

from downtown Vancouver and still be depending on a generator as the source of

your electricity seems to me to be something that calls out for a little bit of

work.

We've

helped fund some feasibility studies for the Douglas first nation. I could go

on; the list is a long one. Time will tell whether these projects achieve the

results we hope for them. I certainly expect that we'll be scrutinized for our

successes and perhaps our lack of success, but this is what we're doing in our

attempt to fulfil the commitment that the member spoke of in his question.

Nuraney: I think the remarks of the Attorney General are really echoing the

spirit of this House in wanting to move on in these matters. I do vividly

remember that mention was made at the provincial congress about some people

living across from Harrison Lake who did not have electricity. I am very pleased

to see that the Attorney General acted fairly quickly in that matter to ensure

that those communities' needs were addressed, as we have moved along in other

ministries, as well, addressing these needs.

[1635]

I was also

very encouraged to listen to the remarks at the last provincial congress, where

Chief Ed John and Miles Richardson made some very positive comments as to the

willingness and the real desire of this government to move along in this treaty

process. As we have moved along to re-establishing the trust and the confidence,

I would like to ask the Attorney General whether this is reflected around the

tables — that this kind of confidence is now very evident.

Hon. G.

Plant: Well, I suppose it was gratifying to hear the comments that were made

at the last provincial congress. I think Miles Richardson was trying to send a

message that we're on the verge of some successes, and I believe he's right.

Maybe it's just my nature to be cautious about these things. We are but one

party to each of these negotiations. We won't have agreement unless all three

parties can find agreement on terms of an arrangement that work for all three

parties.

We're very

close at some tables, as I explained during the answers to the questions the

Leader of the Opposition asked. I believe we're on the verge of a significant

breakthrough, but I also recognize that to some

[ Page 6167 ]

extent the question of whether we are is out of my hands. We're doing what we

believe we should do to protect the provincial public interest and yet work

towards agreement. If the first nations at the breakthrough tables and Canada

come to the negotiations with the same commitment, then I think we will have

some success. I look forward to the opportunity to stand here and report on that

success at some future date.

MacKay: I look forward to asking some questions and to the responses from

the minister dealing with treaty issues in the province. Obviously, the issue of

treaties is important to myself and important to the people of the riding I

represent. The questions I'm going to be putting to the minister are questions

that I have asked of me as the MLA representing the riding, as well as issues

that have come to my attention from reading through the service plan for the

ministry. Because the service plan is kind of broken into two areas — the

Attorney General and the Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations — my

questions are going to be tied together in a few instances. I would ask for the

minister's indulgence as he responds to my questions.

First of

all, I'd like to go to page 8 of the service plan. On the bottom of page 8 it

talks about the ministry vision, mission and values. On the very bottom it talks

about the values and respect for the law. I guess my first question has to do

with the respect for the law as it relates to civil disobedience. Because I'm

talking about civil disobedience and native roadblocks that have had a financial

impact on my riding, I'd like to ask the minister: could he explain how his

ministry vision for respect for the law is being handled in cases of civil

disobedience by way of roadblocks by the natives?

[1640]

Hon. G.

Plant: I thank the member for his question. The member is right. In a way,

that question probably is a point at which the two sides of my ministerial

responsibilities come together in a way that I think is constructive. When we do

work at the treaty negotiations office, we're trying to find agreements that

will build a strong relationship that is based on trust and will minimize the

friction, the uncertainty, the lack of knowledge, the lack of information and

the doubt that are often at the seed of the felt need to engage in civil

disobedience or blockades or other action. But we're not always successful in

achieving those objectives.

From my

perspective as Attorney General, I think it's hugely important that we maintain

a justice system and that we as government do what we have to do to support a

justice system based on fundamental values of equality, based on a notion of our

obligation to encourage respect for the law, but recognizing that disputes are

often different, one from the other. Modern dispute resolution techniques

require us to be sensitive to that reality, so we don't necessarily wave our

hand in exactly the same way for every dispute. But I do think, as Attorney

General, it's important