2006 Legislative Session: Second Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 22, 2006

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 7, Number 12

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Vancouver homeless outreach project

L. Mayencourt

Sinking of B.C. ferry

C. James

Unmarked gravesites of veterans

G. Hogg

World Water Day

S. Simpson

Margaret Strongitharm

R. Cantelon

Forest worker safety

B. Simpson

Oral Questions

Sinking of B.C. ferry

C. James

Hon. K. Falcon

C. Trevena

Ferry service to northern communities

C. Trevena

Hon. K. Falcon

Coastal community access to Forests

Minister

S. Fraser

Hon. R.

Coleman

B. Simpson

Sexual harassment in B.C. fire services

D. Thorne

Hon. J. Les

Hon. I. Chong

Food services in Maple Ridge health

care facilities

M. Sather

Hon. G. Abbott

Waneta Dam power project

C. Evans

Hon. R.

Neufeld

Tabling Documents

Office of the Auditor General, report

No. 9, 2005-2006, Leading the Way — Adopting Best Practices in

Government Financial Reporting 2004-2005

Petitions

S. Fraser

N. Simons

Committee of the Whole House

Ministerial Accountability Bases Act,

2005-2006 (Bill 6)

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Ministerial Accountability Bases Act,

2005-2006 (Bill 6)

Second Reading of Bills

New Relationship Trust Act (Bill 11)

Hon. T.

Christensen

S. Fraser

J. McIntyre

N. Simons

J. Rustad

M. Karagianis

J. Nuraney

C. Wyse

L. Mayencourt

H. Lali

M. Polak

C. Trevena

V. Roddick

M. Sather

Hon. P. Bell

J. Kwan

J. Yap

J. Horgan

K. Krueger

Hon. T.

Christensen

Committee of the Whole House

Tobacco Sales (Preventing Youth Access

to Tobacco) Amendment Act, 2006 (Bill 12)

J. Horgan

Hon. G. Abbott

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Tobacco Sales (Preventing Youth Access

to Tobacco) Amendment Act, 2006 (Bill 12)

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Children and

Family Development (continued)

H. Bains

Hon. L. Reid

A. Dix

D. Thorne

R. Austin

C. Wyse

Hon. S. Hagen

[ Page 3127 ]

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 22, 2006

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

D. MacKay: Last night many of us had the opportunity to meet with the Guide Outfitters Association of British Columbia. Joining us today somewhere upstairs, from the Indian River guide-outfitters out of the Smithers area, is Ginny Larson. I would ask the House to welcome her to the chamber today.

H. Bains: In the House today are my good friends from Steel. They're led by the director of district three, Steve Hunt. He's with the normative board. Monty Mearns, Bill Derbyshire, Scott Lunny, Bill Routley and Rick Wangler. They're here to educate us about the concerns in the forest for safety. Please join me in welcoming them to the House today.

D. Hayer: We have some very special guests visiting our Legislature today from the B.C. Care Providers Association. First is Art Foster, president and CEO of Pro Vita Care Management; Wayne Baron, president and CEO of Fraser Intermediate Care; Scott Nicoll of Hamilton, Duncan, Armstrong and Stewart of Surrey, barristers and solicitors; Marilyn Slade, the CEO of Villa Capital; Ed Helfrich, CEO of the B.C. Care Providers Association; Dave Pel, CGA, from David Pel and Co.; and Pat Doyle, CFO, from Elim Housing Society in my riding of Surrey-Tynehead.

Would the House please make them very welcome. They were here discussing some health care issues with our caucus.

R. Chouhan: In the House today are two dear friends, Scott McRitchie and Kevin Zwick. Please join me to welcome them.

Hon. P. Bell: I'm very pleased to introduce to the House today some folks from Prince George. They were down for the guide-outfitters dinner last night. They're Ken and Crystal Watson and their two daughters. I might add that I'd like to pass on special thanks to Crystal for looking after my wife when I'm down here in Victoria. They go out and walk on a regular basis. So thanks very much to Crystal, and welcome to the House.

C. Evans: A couple of other Steelworkers are visiting us here today: Frank Everitt, president of the Prince George local, and a guy I especially want to introduce, Richard Tones. I wanted to assure the House that all rumours to the contrary, Richard is really not a slum landlord. His house could be fixed up with a little bit of paint. Those people that he rents to are really honourable citizens and appreciate the space. We're saving the house in case the Steelworkers ever send him back to Victoria to work here. Then he could live in his own house.

J. Rustad: It's my pleasure today to introduce to the House Mary-Jane Fillion, who is actually from just south of my riding — from Hixon in my neighbouring riding of Cariboo North. She's also with the guide-outfitters and is very active with the North Central Guide Outfitters. Outfitters is a very good organization for our province that generates more than $120 million in economic activity. Would the House please make her welcome.

B. Simpson: I would like to add to the list of Steelworkers representatives who are here today making sure that we're well apprised of the safety issues in the forest industry. In the House are Leslie McNabb from Black Creek, Leanne Baird from Duncan, George Rogers from Port Alberni, Ray Hudden from New Westminster, Dan Ewaskow from Prince George, Jeff Brumley from Cranbrook, and Dennis Devoe and Kim Polak, who both hail from Vancouver.

Will the House please make them welcome.

[1410]

Hon. G. Abbott: As members may be aware, this week is Anemia Awareness Week. The Anemia Institute is holding an anemia screening clinic in the Legislature this week, and I'd encourage all members who may be feeling anemic, like me, to visit the clinic and be tested. It is my pleasure to welcome three representatives who are here today in the Legislature from the Anemia Institute. They are Durhane Wong-Rieger, Virginia Krupiz and Michelle Levesque. I'd ask the House to join me in making them all welcome.

S. Fraser: I would like to take this time to welcome a friend and constituent. He has been mentioned already, but I'd just like to say that George Rogers has supposedly been retired and retiring, yet he has been devoting a lot of time towards protecting workers in the forests. So please help me in welcoming him here today.

N. Macdonald: It's my pleasure to welcome to the House Bob Madders, with Steelworkers from the East Kootenays. I ask the House to help me make him feel welcome, please.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, yesterday I think we missed a milestone in the chambers. One of the Clerks who sits in front of us actually went past the three-quarters-of-a-century mark. Could we wish Mr. MacMinn a happy birthday.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) VANCOUVER HOMELESS

OUTREACH PROJECT

L. Mayencourt: I rise to highlight an important initiative that's taking place in downtown Vancouver. It is

[ Page 3128 ]

a program in which we partner with the city of Vancouver to connect homeless people with income support and housing.

The Vancouver homeless outreach project, or HOPE, is a pilot project aimed at taking homeless people from the streets of Vancouver and providing them with income assistance and housing, often within the same day. The pilot project began in October 2005 and will conclude at the end of this month.

The initial phase of the homeless outreach project was in place from October to December, and during that phase homeless individuals from the West End and the downtown east side were assisted. During the second phase, which is run from January to March of this year, individuals from the downtown south and the downtown east side were assisted.

The Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance in partnership with the city of Vancouver and the Carnegie Centre and their housing department have worked together to make this project a success.

I'm really proud of the success of this pilot outreach initiative in combatting homelessness in our community. Of the people brought into the outreach offices, 95 percent have begun receiving income assistance and have been provided with a place to live in the same day. To this date, this initiative has assisted 89 previously homeless people. Think of it — almost 90 people taken off the streets, given a stable income and a place to live. I'm really, really proud of that. No other government has ever tried this here in British Columbia.

Our government recognizes that many people living in Vancouver and in other communities face unique challenges and complex issues including homelessness, addiction and mental health. One of this government's goals is to build the best system of support for British Columbia's most vulnerable citizens. We are doing it. We are committed to working with other levels of government all across this province, with community partners, to ensure that individuals in need have better access to the support and services that will make a real difference in their lives.

SINKING OF B.C. FERRY

C. James: I rise to ask the House to join with me and all British Columbians in expressing relief, knowing that all the passengers and crew aboard the ferry vessel Queen of the North are safe.

Thanks to the rapid response of the B.C. Ferries crew, everyone aboard was safely off the ferry vessel before it sank early Wednesday morning en route to Port Hardy. Their professionalism ensured that there was no loss of life.

I also want to make sure to thank the Coast Guard for their quick response. Their actions meant that the recovery of survivors from lifeboats began within 19 minutes of the call.

I also want to express my appreciation to the people of Hartley Bay, who opened their hearts and their community to the passengers and crew and offered assistance and shelter to those in crisis.

[1415]

I fully expect that the provincial government will make available to the public the results of the investigation that will take place so that we can learn from it and prevent it happening again.

As important as it is that British Columbians have an accessible ferry service, it's equally important they have confidence in the safety of the vessels they use. A full accounting of the circumstances that led to this incident will ensure that public confidence is maintained.

UNMARKED GRAVESITES OF VETERANS

G. Hogg: James Irving McMillan was a distinguished Canadian veteran. He was recruited on Christmas Eve in 1901 by the North West Mounted Police. He fought as part of an outnumbered British force at the battle of Hart's River, one of Canada's bloodiest days in the Boer War. He was discharged in South Africa in 1902 and then served with the South African constabulary, which was staffed by many ex-North West Mounted Police members.

These Canadians are credited with integrating the Boers into various communities. This continued the legacy of keeping the peace which was started by the North West Mounted Police on the plains of western Canada and which is now an important part of our Canadian heritage. As a result of their service in the Boer War, the North West Mounted Police was given the title "Royal," and the Stetson and Strathcona boots became an important part of the RCMP dress uniforms.

In 1916 James joined the Canadian Grenadier Guards and fought at the Somme and at Courcelette, where we suffered 24,000 casualties. In 1917 he joined 520 Canadians for the assault on Vimy Ridge, three days in a battle which helped define Canada. They took their objective, while 55 percent of their battalion were injured or killed. James McMillan was awarded the military medal for gallantry at Vimy Ridge. He is credited with twice crossing no man's land to provide crucial information to the brigade regarding the progress of the attack.

James died in White Rock in 1965 at the age of 87. He was buried in an unmarked grave in the veterans'

section of the Sunnyside Lawn Cemetery. He is one of an estimated 3,000 veterans in unmarked graves across British Columbia. In May the RCMP, led by Constable Cyril, the armed forces, the Royal Canadian Legion and the local school children will hold a ceremony to commemorate and mark the grave of James Irving McMillan and the unmarked gravesites of 35 other veterans.

These men and women will be remembered, while many hundreds of veterans who served our country still lie in unmarked graves. With the assistance of the Last Post Fund society, the armed forces, the Royal Canadian Legion, the RCMP and local groups, we can ensure that our veterans are remembered in a spirit of commemoration by communities across this province. I believe that it is our challenge and it is our responsibility.

[ Page 3129 ]

WORLD WATER DAY

S. Simpson: I'm pleased to rise today to recognize World Water Day. First established in 1992 by the United Nations, March 22 was set as the day for people across the world to recognize the essential role of water in our lives. It's a day for activities that promote public awareness about conservation and development of our water resources.

We have an abundance of water riches in British Columbia, particularly compared to much of the world; 9.5 percent of our land base is covered by fresh water. We are incredibly fortunate compared to the billions of people worldwide who face serious health issues and premature death, largely because of their lack of a supply of clean, drinkable water.

However, even in B.C. we must stay aware of this most valuable and irreplaceable resource and not take it for granted. For us, World Water Day is a time to ask ourselves whether we are doing the best job possible as stewards for the fresh water resource.

Unfortunately, we cannot always feel as good about our efforts as we might want to. We need to do a better job on water conservation, including maintaining public control over the resource. We need to do a better job on public awareness and education, including getting people to do simple things, like using the short cycle on their washing machine or fixing that leaky faucet that they've been ignoring.

We need to work with the resource sector, including our farming community, to reduce the use of fresh water, while still allowing these enterprises to prosper. Water-dependent industries, including power production in B.C., bring over $17 billion to the economy of B.C., and that is critically important. But even more important is the invaluable role of water for drinking and public safety.

[1420]

World Water Day is an important event, and I would call on every member to think about the critical role water plays in our lives when they turn on a tap or have a drink. Along with air, it is our most valuable resource and public asset, and one that certainly deserves our attention and recognition every day in this Legislature.

MARGARET STRONGITHARM

R. Cantelon: I rise in the House today to honour one of Nanaimo's most prominent citizens, Margaret Strongitharm. If I were to stand here and cite the accolades that Margaret has received for exemplary community leadership, I would consume the entire two minutes and not have time to tell you about what a warm, sincere and wonderful person she is.

But here are a few: the Order of Canada for her work on many federal women's commissions; freeman of the city of Nanaimo to recognize her as a leader and community builder; receiving an honorary doctorate of laws from Malaspina University College. There is a room named in her honour at the Port Theatre, which she was instrumental in seeing built. Margaret has served as a city councillor, on the school board and with too many other organizations to name.

She was married to Ted, a lawyer by profession but a great raconteur and storyteller by avocation. Ted was a prominent leader of the Conservative Party. Theirs was a political family, and the dinner table was a daily forum of current events. Their son Bruce, however, became permanently afflicted by this constant exposure to political environment and now works in this building for the Minister of Forests and Range.

It was my good fortune to have Margaret on my board when I chaired what is now the Port Theatre Society. There was no theatre then, just a dream. It was a dream Margaret was able to imbue in us as a reality. It was not a time for smooth sailing for the Port Theatre Society. We were running out of money, and the city was running out of patience with us, but Margaret never wavered.

You might envision a steely persona — the Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher. Our Margaret, however, is a sincere, serene lady, always polite, calm and fully self-possessed. She had a unique connection to the truth and positive hope. She would never overreact to a crisis, real or imagined. Margaret would give a little, amused laugh, and that was a signal that nothing on earth is that serious. Then her wonderful, calm insightfulness would bring us back to the task.

She was the type of person who would walk into a barroom brawl, ask people to sit down, and they would sit down. It was her working evidence of the power of the meek. Her manner may have been meek, but she was never cowed and never taken off her game. She is a living legend to me and a blessing to all who know her.

FOREST WORKER SAFETY

B. Simpson: Another log truck driver was killed this week on a Forest Service road near Mackenzie. Apparently it was the driver's first trip of the night, but that means little at this time of the year, when these drivers are affected by a season's worth of fatigue.

I've had the opportunity over the past few months to hear the stories of many forest workers and their families. A general theme of these stories is the impact that shift arrangements and working conditions are having on the bodies and minds of these workers — fatigue, not a culture of risk-taking, as some would have us believe. It is insulting to the workers who have borne the brunt of our drive to be globally competitive to suggest, as some have, that we cannot address the safety issues in the forest industry unless individual workers want to be safe.

In fact, if there's a culture of risk in the industry, it is in the boardrooms whenever decisions are made about cost control that fail to have a safety lens. If there is a culture of risk, it occurs in this room when legislation is passed that undermines the government's obligations and its ability to ensure that every worker in the forest industry is guaranteed the right to work in safe conditions and to speak out against unsafe ones.

[ Page 3130 ]

The real risk-takers are the decision-makers, including all of us in this Legislature. Each time a worker is killed or maimed, we need to take a long look in the mirror and see if we were part of the root cause of that tragic event. One way we can collectively look in the mirror is to act on the Steelworkers' request to conduct an independent review of the government's deregulation of the forest industry. For the sake of all those who have given their lives and limbs, it is simply the right thing to do.

Oral Questions

SINKING OF B.C. FERRY

C. James: This morning we had a major disaster involving a ferry vessel. The public have a lot of questions. We know there will be a federal investigation, and I expect there will be a full investigation undertaken by B.C. Ferries.

My question is to the Transportation Minister. Can he assure the House that the results of these investigations will be made public?

[1425]

Hon. K. Falcon: If I may, Mr. Speaker, with the forbearance of the House, I would just like to take an additional moment to speak about this morning's events and address this very important issue.

At around 12:45 a.m. this morning, there was an extraordinary and very unfortunate incident with the B.C. Ferry vessel Queen of the North . Approximately 70 miles outside of Prince Rupert, the Queen of the North apparently ran aground and sank near Gil Island in the Inside Passage. To the best of our knowledge, all passengers and crew were safely evacuated to Hartley Bay and Prince Rupert. It goes without saying that without the extraordinary response from the ship's crew, local fishermen, Coast Guard and residents of Hartley Bay, this could have been a much more tragic incident.

I can assure everyone, and to the member's question directly, that extensive reviews will take place with B.C. Ferries and the federal regulators — which, as this House knows, are Transport Canada and the Transportation Safety Board — to find out exactly what happened. I will commit that whatever those reviews are will fully be made public.

I know all members of this House join with me in extending our thoughts and prayers to both the passengers and the crew as they go through what must be an extraordinarily traumatizing time.

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

C. James: Thank you to the minister for committing to making sure that those reports are public. We will look forward to it, and I know the public will look forward to it.

The reason this is an important question on behalf of the public is that there is a very real accountability gap with B.C. Ferries. As we all know, it's no longer subject to freedom-of-information requests; it's no longer subject to reviews by the Auditor General. In fact, it's not really accountable to British Columbians anymore, despite the fact that taxpayers have put over half a billion dollars into that corporation since 2003.

Today there is a major disaster on our coast. There are questions surrounding the government's discussion on the corporation regarding the state of the northern fleet — questions that deserve answers.

So my question is to the Minister of Transportation. Will the minister commit today to take a step towards accountability and add B.C. Ferries to the Freedom of Information Act, and will he give the Auditor General oversight of B.C. Ferries operations?

Hon. K. Falcon: I think the member knows that there was a reason why B.C. Ferries was moved to be an independent authority. It wasn't just a bright idea that the government came up with. It was actually a recommendation that flowed from three separate reports that followed from the fast ferries fiasco. Those reports, including the Auditor General's, suggested…. The primary suggestion was that there needed to be independence from political interference. That's exactly what we have today. That's why it's so important that that independence be maintained.

Now, the Auditor General is free to examine whatever the Auditor General wishes to examine. But I can tell you that they have accountabilities built into place, including oversight from the securities markets, which are much tougher, frankly, than this House. They have oversight in the form of an annual general meeting in which members of the public, including members of the opposition, have an opportunity to question first-hand all of the members. They have audited financial statements that must be released each and every year to ensure that the public has confidence that all of those things are taken into account.

C. Trevena: I'd like to suggest to the minister that freedom of information has nothing to do with the independence of the corporation. However, I'm not wanting to talk about politics on this day. There has been a tragedy on our coast, and I want to talk about safety.

The Premier assured British Columbians that our ferry service, our marine highway, is safe. However, the Minister of Transportation hasn't been able to give assurances that other vessels of this class are safe. So I'd like to ask the Minister of Transportation whether he can clarify the government's position on this and whether those other vessels in this class are safe.

[1430]

Hon. K. Falcon: I think the member probably recognizes that the one thing we have to be very careful about is not jumping to assumptions or conclusions about what may or may not have caused the very unfortunate, tragic incident that took place today. One thing I can tell the member with absolutely great confi-

[ Page 3131 ]

dence and certainty is that B.C. Ferries has one of the best safety records in the world. It's important to remember that B.C. Ferries plies the waters with up to 500 trips a day. That represents over 145,000 trips a year. The particular vessel that unfortunately sank today has been plying those waters for some 25 years.

The member should also know, for her information, that there is an annual inspection certificate required for each and every vessel that Transport Canada puts into place each and every year to ensure that these vessels are safe.

Let's just make sure that we don't jump to conclusions as to what the cause of this most regrettable situation was. When we get that information, we will, of course, make sure it's shared with everybody in this House so that the appropriate solutions can be put into place.

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

FERRY SERVICE TO

NORTHERN COMMUNITIES

C. Trevena: I wasn't jumping to conclusions. I was wanting to know about the vessels of the other class. I understand that the Queen of the North was on the Prince Rupert to Port Hardy route because the Queen of Prince Rupert was having its annual inspection so it will get its safety certificate. It'll have regular maintenance.

This ferry links Haida Gwaii, the Queen Charlottes, to the mainland. It links the north coast to the north Island. It has been described as a lifeline. It's what people use for medical transportation. It's for non-letter mail. It's for regular use by many, many people. It's also part of industry, because it gets goods to the islands and is good for transportation.

I'd like to ask the Minister of Transportation how long the residents of Haida Gwaii, Queen Charlottes, and the residents of the north Island and north coast will have to wait for a ferry to be put back on that route.

Hon. K. Falcon: The member is correct in pointing out that the Queen of Prince Rupert was undergoing some minor maintenance work on that vessel.

I spoke to Mr. Hahn today, the president of B.C. Ferries. He advised that they will try to accelerate — obviously, within safety requirements, not to jeopardize safety at all — to make sure they can complete that work as quickly as possible and have that vessel back in operation within the coming days so that it can replace the Queen of the North .

But B.C. Ferries has also made it very clear to me that they will undertake whatever measures are necessary. That includes flying people in and out, if necessary, if the ferries are not there to provide the services they expect. They will barge food in, if that's necessary. They will take whatever steps need to be in place to ensure that those folks are serviced in that very important area of the province.

COASTAL COMMUNITY ACCESS

TO FORESTS MINISTER

S. Fraser: Monty Hussey is a coastal forest contractor, and he has been in dispute with Cascadia over compensation for contractors impacted by the revitalization strategy. Last fall Mr. Hussey reached out to the minister for help, and he was told by ministry staff that the minister could not get involved because of a declared conflict. Mr. Hussey wasn't told this just once. It was three times.

My question is to the Minister of Forests and Range. How many other coastal communities, workers or contractors have been told by the ministry staff that this minister cannot get involved in their cases because he has a conflict?

Hon. R. Coleman: When I became the Minister responsible for forests and range last August, I filed the required letter with my deputy minister to deal with issues in and around a particular TFL in British Columbia because I have a brother that happens to work in middle management of one of the companies on the coast.

Subsequent to that, when Western Forest Industries made a bid to buy that particular company, I filed a second letter, more specific, with my deputy minister with regards to the conflict of interest. I received a letter back from the Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner advising me that I had conducted myself absolutely correctly in the manner that should be done by a minister of the Crown.

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

S. Fraser: I do. I understand what the minister is saying, and I don't think he understands what I'm referring to. I'm referring to the lack of attention he has been able to put on coastal policy because of this perceived conflict that he has stated.

The tree farm licence 44 near Port Alberni is a microcosm of forestry issues on the coast. Until last week, the minister has failed to respond to requests for assistance on the issues regarding TFL 44.

[1435]

To the Minister of Forests and Range: how many more coastal communities, workers and concerned citizens will have to take to the streets in order to get political attention to their issues because the minister has still not responded to his declared conflict with respect to coastal forest issues?

Hon. R. Coleman: Nobody is not being responded to. All that happens is that if it happens to touch a conflict with regard to one of my siblings, it is referred to my deputy minister for action versus myself. If it is something of a statutory responsibility, it's referred to my backup minister other than myself. It does not affect the overall operation of TFL 44 — only in a very small area where the person that is related to me has some involvement in a company that happens to be involved in TFL 44.

[ Page 3132 ]

Frankly, I've been here for ten years. I've never got personal, and I'm not about to. The NDP last week got personal about some stuff to me, including making some overtures to the company with regard to my brother, which was despicable. I'm not going down that road, but hon. member, I will not put myself in a conflict of interest. I never have in this House, and nobody is being badly served in the province of British Columbia by this Minister of Forests as a result.

B. Simpson: With all respect to the minister, he is correct. We have not questioned whether or not the minister did the right thing or did the wrong thing.

The issue here is that there are people on the coast who, in a critical situation in which their livelihoods are at stake, only get access to the deputy minister, and there are people on the coast who get access to the minister.

When Western Forest Products takes over Cascadia it will be the largest corporation on the coast, with oversight over 42 percent of the annual allowable cut. My question is to the Deputy Premier. I'm not questioning the minister's decision-making or actions; I'm questioning the Premier's actions. When the coast is in crisis, why wasn't a minister put on that file who was absolutely free and unencumbered to deal with all of the issues, without having to go through and have his deputy minister deal with some and him deal with others?

Hon. R. Coleman: With all due respect to the critic across the floor, he wrote a letter to the Premier last week that was full of hearsay and innuendo, which was not true. To stand in this House and say you haven't made those types of accusations is false, and that upsets me.

However, I will read this quote to the member so that you are completely clear. This comes from H.A.D. Oliver, the Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner for British Columbia, with regard to the very takeover this member is speaking of: "As your brother is neither a director nor an officer nor a shareholder, but middle management employee, any appearance of conflict on your part, I think, is eliminated by your memorandum to your deputy minister dated November 14, 2005, of which you have been good enough to send me a copy and which I think is suitable in the circumstances."

Basically, what it says is this, hon. member. Because my brother would see no financial outcome, I can deal with the Western takeover as a minister without being encumbered.

[1440]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Could I remind members to go through the Chair.

B. Simpson: Again, I directed my question to the Deputy Premier for a reason. We don't have issue with the minister and his actions. His actions were correct.

The question is the decision to appoint the minister when there was a situation in which the minister could not give his full attention and his personal attention to every issue on the coast.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. The member for Cariboo North has the floor.

Continue, member.

B. Simpson: The issue here is that we have a forest sector throughout the province that is in significant crisis and significant restructuring. We have a Liberal government that has chosen to exacerbate that with sweeping forest policy changes that we are just beginning to see the implications of. We have a coast forest sector that is uniquely different from the interior.

My question is to the Deputy Premier. Will the Deputy Premier do the right thing and recommend to the Premier that a coastal forest minister be appointed so that everyone on the coast has direct access to a cabinet minister on every issue and is not encumbered by a declared conflict?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: To the hon. member: none of the vision or leadership required to deal with the issues on the coast or the interior of British Columbia is affected by this small middle-management situation with regard to a forest company on the coast. In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, if you were to talk to the industry, nobody has not had access to the minister with regard to the future of the coast, how we're going to price our timber with timber-pricing groups, how we work with the Truck Loggers Association, the Coast Forest Products Association, the companies themselves — nor in the interior of British Columbia.

As a matter of fact, I think the work done in the last number of months by my staff and me has actually positioned us to build a very strong future for the coastal forest industry in British Columbia and in the interior of British Columbia. The reason we can do this is that we can actually think to the future and build that, and I believe that we're doing it right.

I believe we don't have control of the dollar. I believe we don't have control of softwood lumber. But I do believe that we can put the structure in place and the future for forestry in British Columbia on a very solid footing. I have been doing that as minister, and I will continue to do that as minister on behalf of British Columbians.

SEXUAL HARASSMENT

IN B.C. FIRE SERVICES

D. Thorne: My question is to the Solicitor General, who is responsible to provide advice to local govern-

[ Page 3133 ]

ments on the delivery of fire protection services in this province. Just recently, we have heard that female members of the Richmond fire department have taken leave due to claims of harassment. One woman stated that she faced everything from verbal abuse to feces being placed in her boots. This is not an isolated incident. In 2004 a female firefighter in Burnaby also filed a formal complaint with the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal about crude sexual jokes, exposure to pornography, and other forms of sexual harassment.

To the Solicitor General: what is your government going to do to ensure that women firefighters provincewide are able to do their jobs without fear of sexual harassment?

Hon. J. Les: I'm aware of the allegations that have been made in that particular fire department, and I want to state unequivocally that we expect every workplace in British Columbia to be free of harassment and discrimination.

[1445]

I also expect that the municipality in question, as the employer, take all appropriate steps to ensure that that matter is dealt with to the satisfaction of all parties concerned.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Coquitlam-Maillardville has a supplemental.

D. Thorne: I, too, expect workplaces in British Columbia to be free of harassment, but obviously that's not the case, and that is the concern. It appears that the Solicitor General is willing to let the municipality take full responsibility, and he doesn't appear to be taking any responsibility today himself. So I will ask my next question of the Minister of Community Services.

In the past two years we have seen multiple complaints from women at more than one fire service in B.C. This suggests there could be systemic problems in the workplace culture of the fire service. To the Minister of Community Services: are you going to continue to allow individual women to carry the burden of raising complaints about the fire service? Or will you take proactive steps to ensure that we don't hear about these types of complaints again?

Hon. I. Chong: Let me say unequivocally here in this House that sexual harassment is unacceptable, and it is something that we all take very seriously. Under the B.C. Human Rights Code, there is zero tolerance for sexual harassment in all provincially regulated businesses and agencies. Employers and service providers are responsible for ensuring a harassment-free environment, including taking reasonable action to correct situations where sexual harassment does occur.

FOOD SERVICES IN MAPLE RIDGE

HEALTH CARE FACILITIES

M. Sather: People in my constituency are getting sick and tired of the poor quality of food that's being served at Ridge Meadows Hospital and the adjoining extended care facilities. The seniors in my community are taking the lead. They're petitioning this government to cancel this disastrous experiment in rethermalized food and bring back real food made on site at our community hospital and in our extended care homes.

Yesterday even the Ridge Meadows Hospital Auxiliary association weighed in with their concerns. They said in a letter: "Some of our members have had the experience of having to eat this rethermalized food. The reports have not been good. We are also concerned about the people living in long-term care. Do you not feel that appetizing meals would be a benefit to those citizens who, in most cases, have their years numbered?"

Will the minister cancel this failed experiment in rethermalized food and bring back real food for the deserving citizens of Maple Ridge?

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for raising the issue. It may not surprise the member, but this issue is not one that is confined to his area or his hospital. I suppose there are debates across the province, across Canada. I know that in Manitoba there's a raging debate about rethermalized food in hospitals as well. This is a debate that is going on around the globe.

From my perspective, what we need to do with not only hospitals but other institutions is ensure that the food served to patients is nutritious, that it is of good quality and that it is, most importantly, safe for the consumption of the patients. I'm pleased that for the first time ever, we are doing audits around food quality. We believe that the results of those food audits will help us continuously improve the quality of food that's served in hospitals.

This has been an issue as long as there have been hospitals. If the member thinks it started with rethermalized food, he's wrong.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows has a supplemental.

M. Sather: It's true that there is a lot of discussion and discontent about rethermalized food around this province. That much the minister has right. But the fact of the matter is that many of these people who are living in these long-term care facilities are fragile. They can't wait for another study.

[1450]

Will the minister do the right thing: cancel this failed experiment now and bring back real food to those long-term care facilities in Maple Ridge?

Hon. G. Abbott: There are 20,000 to 30,000 meals served every day to patients in hospitals in British Columbia — about seven million meals per year. Again, the member may have a predisposition against rethermalized food, and that's fair enough.

The issue…

Interjections.

[ Page 3134 ]

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Abbott: …is: is the food safe? Is it nutritious? Is it tasty? Is it safe? Those are the issues that are central to the debate around food quality. If the member is making a declarative statement on behalf of the official opposition that they are going to eliminate rethermalized food from hospitals in the future, I welcome them to make that declaration, and I'll take note of it.

WANETA DAM POWER PROJECT

C. Evans: After years of excellent and successful work, the Waneta expansion project near Trail is due to receive its environmental assessment certificate this year. I'm wondering if the minister responsible for Columbia Power will tell us if he has instructed the Crown that he desires to see this 435-megawatt project proceed.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Actually, I can't comment on that question. As the member said, it's before the EA process. That's with the Minister of Environment. It would be unfair of me to comment on something that's in front of an environmental assessment process.

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

C. Evans: I guess if I had asked the Minister of Energy if he would please say if he thinks this is an environmentally benign idea, then that would be a reasonable answer. But I'm talking business to the minister. I'm talking about buying the power that's produced.

I'll ask a different question. B.C. Hydro is now in a deficit position. We're consuming more power than we are producing. We tend to buy electricity from our neighbours to the east and to the south, and it's all made by burning hydrocarbons — essentially coal and gas. Waneta will produce clean, green Kyoto-safe power — 435 megawatts. That's half as big as Site C.

Will the Minister of Energy please tell us if he has instructed B.C. Hydro, as a business proposition, to initiate negotiations to buy the power that will be produced by Waneta Dam?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Well, I appreciate the question from the member for Nelson-Creston wanting to talk about business. I think it's not something…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Neufeld: …that he's normally talked about.

Clean energy in the province of British Columbia. We have the cleanest energy in North America. Over 90 percent of our generation of electricity comes from clean sources. We should be proud of that. Any clean electricity we can get in the future, we're actually going to use and buy. In fact, since we came into office, B.C. Hydro has purchased 5,000 gigawatt hours. That's as much as the Site C dam would put out — all clean energy in the province of British Columbia.

We intend to move forward with that, unlike the opposition when they were in government. When that member was in government, what did they build? A gas-fired plant in Pakistan. That's what they built in ten years. They built a gas-fired plant on Vancouver Island.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Neufeld: They built a gas-fired plant in Fort Nelson, British Columbia. And here he starts talking to me…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Neufeld: …about green energy, clean energy.

Mr. Speaker, we will do the right thing for British Columbians. We will make sure that there is electricity here for British Columbians and for generations to come and from all clean sources.

[1455]

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, I have the honour to present a report of the Auditor General, report 9, 2005-2006: Leading the Way — Adopting Best Practices in Government Financial Reporting 2004-2005.

Petitions

S. Fraser: I have a petition to deliver here, calling for action to deal with the tragedy of death and disability in the forest industry in B.C.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Cowichan-Ladysmith — Powell River–Sunshine Coast. Sorry.

N. Simons: The nice thing about Cowichan - Ladysmith is that it looks at the Sunshine Coast.

I would like to also present a petition on behalf of residents of the beautiful Sunshine Coast, who are expressing their concern about mining activity, potential mining on the Sechelt Inlet.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we'll con-

[ Page 3135 ]

tinue with the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

In this chamber, committee stage debate on Bill 6. Thereafter, Bill 11, second reading.

Committee of the Whole House

MINISTERIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

BASES ACT, 2005-2006

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 6; S. Hawkins in the chair.

The committee met at 2:59 p.m.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:59 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[1500]

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

MINISTERIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

BASES ACT, 2005-2006

Bill 6, Ministerial Accountability Bases Act, 2005-2006, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call second reading of Bill 11.

Second Reading of Bills

NEW RELATIONSHIP TRUST ACT

Hon. T. Christensen: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

I am pleased to move now to second reading. The government is committed to a new relationship with first nations based on mutual respect, on reconciliation and, fundamentally, on recognition of aboriginal rights. In embarking upon this new relationship, we are turning our backs on a legacy of denial in the province.

It's an unfortunate legacy. When we have the opportunity to sit down and look at the history of the relationship between first nations and the provincial Crown in this province, it's not one we come away from feeling proud. We started out all right in the 1850s. We negotiated a few treaties, which have come to be known as the Douglas treaties, here on lower Vancouver Island, and then we stopped.

[S. Hawkins in the chair.]

From the late 1850s for well over a century, the province dug in its heels and consistently denied that first nations had rights, that first nations actually were here before European contact and that there was a need to reconcile the existence of those rights and those title interests with the immigration of so many others to this great province. It's a legacy of denial that was consistent through the late 1800s into the early 1900s.

Quite frankly, the record of history shows that we took extraordinary steps to ensure that first nations didn't have the opportunity to embark upon a debate about those rights and title interests. We went as far as outlawing the ability of first nations to organize themselves, to pursue claims of rights in title. We denied aboriginal peoples the most fundamental opportunity that we all hold dear: the one that gives us the vote. We held on to that denial for a long time.

We outlawed customs that we feared allowed first nations to come together and debate these issues themselves and then come to government and make the case that aboriginal rights and title interests had to be dealt with. For decade after decade we took extraordinary steps to not have to address issues of aboriginal rights and title. It's only really in the past two to three decades that we've started to see a shift.

We've seen an opportunity for first nations to pursue their rightful claims that their aboriginal rights need to be recognized and their title interests need to be recognized. Very slowly, governments have come to recognize that these are issues we need to deal with. Far too often we've dealt with these issues in the context of what amounts to a continued denial rather than trying to work with first nations to recognize what is the most simple fact: the fact that we are all here to stay.

First nations aren't leaving, and I don't think any of the rest of us whose families have only been here a century — in some cases a couple of centuries, or in many cases much shorter than that — are prepared to leave.

[1505]

We have to find a way that we reconcile the existence of aboriginal rights and title with the reality of Crown title and the need for all of us to live here together and pursue the opportunities that are available in this province in a way that benefits both first nations and non–first nations.

We have very deliberately, in embarking upon a new relationship, chosen to turn our back on that legacy of denial of aboriginal rights and title and to embrace an opportunity to work with first nations in trying to find a way that first nations and non–first nations — a way that all British Columbians — can benefit from the incredible opportunities that lie before us in this province, whether those are economic, social or cultural opportunities.

This journey to build a new relationship started in earnest about a year ago. There's a very important organization, a small group that has been instrumental in initiating this journey, and that's the First Nations

[ Page 3136 ]

Leadership Council. They've been our partners in this journey. I was incredibly honoured yesterday, when we introduced this bill in first reading, to be joined here on the floor of the Legislature by three representatives from the First Nations Leadership Council. It was an honour to be joined by Chief Stewart Phillip, who is the president of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, by Grand Chief Ed John and by Dave Porter, both of whom represent the First Nations Summit.

It's important that we recognize the other first nations leaders who are on the First Nations Leadership Council for the time and energy they have put in over the last number of months, as we go down this path of the new relationship. I want to recognize, as well, Chief Mike Retasket and Chief Robert Shintah, both from the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, as well as Chief Doug Kelly from the First Nations Summit and regional chief Shawn Atleo from the Assembly of First Nations.

All of these first nations leaders have been instrumental in getting us to where we are today. That's not to say that there's not a great deal of work still to do. But we have made progress. It was important and, again, an honour that some of those leaders were able to join me here on the floor of the House during first reading to recognize the significance of this initiative.

Those first nations leaders and first nations leaders around this province represent a significant segment of our society: the first nations of British Columbia. Collectively, these first nations are among the most culturally diverse in Canada, the most culturally diverse in the world, and their contributions to our culture and to our history certainly have not been appropriately recognized in the past.

The new relationship marks the first time in the history of British Columbia that the provincial government and first nations leaders representing all first nations in the province have come together in a spirit of cooperation to look at changing the status quo for the benefit of all British Columbians and to realize a shared vision for a strong and prosperous future for this province, a province that has the opportunity to lead Canada in social and economic development.

The government's strategic vision for the province of British Columbia is embodied in five great goals, and we've laid those goals out for the public to look at and to help us pursue.

Those goals are to make B.C. the best-educated, most literate jurisdiction on the continent; to lead the way in North America in healthy living and physical fitness; to build the best system of support in Canada for persons with disabilities, persons with special needs, children at risk and seniors; to lead the world in sustainable environmental management with the best air and water quality and the best fisheries management, bar none; and to create more jobs per capita than anywhere else in Canada.

But when we look at those laudable and ambitious goals, we quickly recognize that this vision can only be achieved if first nations citizens attain these goals as well.

[1510]

To achieve these strategic goals, we recognize that we must achieve first nations economic self-sufficiency and make first nations a strong economic partner in the province and the country through sustainable land and resource development, effective shared decision-making and shared benefits that support first nations as distinct and healthy communities. If we do that, if we explore the contributions and celebrate the contributions of first nations to our shared history, all British Columbians will benefit from that richer understanding of first nations culture and from the economic, political and cultural partnerships that we have the opportunity to pursue with first nations.

What we recognize as we explore these ideas, as we look to the future and try to determine how we better walk this path together, is that to reach those goals, first nations need the tools and the skills to become full, active and engaged participants in the social and economic landscape. To make this possible, our government has set aside a one-time, $100 million capacity-building fund for first nations, and that is the bill that is before us this afternoon. Because the fund will support increased capacity for first nations into the future, its benefits will carry on over the long term as first nations increase their ability to participate in the new relationship with government.

I have been asked — actually, quite frequently in the last 24 hours: "What sorts of things will this fund support? When we talk about capacity-building, what do we mean by that?" I think we often throw these terms out there and leave them to hang there, and people can define them themselves. Capacity-building can be a pretty broad concept.

We recognize, notwithstanding the incredible success of some members of our first nations communities — and whole communities, in some cases — that in this province over the recent years there is a great need to build strength and capacity within first nations communities, and the ability to better be involved in the modern economy, and that that's going to take a great deal of effort.

It's important to recognize, in identifying the priorities for capacity-building, that it's first nations that need to be doing that. We need to move away from the days where those of us who don't live in those communities, those of us that don't have the opportunity to spend time in the communities and identify first-hand and feel the challenges that are present…. It's not us who should be defining the priorities for capacity-building. We should recognize the need for it, and we should provide assistance as we are able, and we're doing that, but we must allow first nations to choose what their fundamental first priorities are for capacity-building.

The board of directors that will manage this fund will do that, and they will do that in consultation with first nations. But some of the things that have come up in the conversations we've been having over the course of this last year — and, in the context of those conversations, evolving to, "Oh, wait a minute. We need some people to do certain things" — do help inform the types of things that might be funded through this fund.

When we look at opportunities for first nations to be more involved in forestry, for example — and when

[ Page 3137 ]

we look at the fact that we now have over 100 agreements in the province where first nations are taking up an opportunity to be involved in the forest economy, to have access to fibre — we find, in discussions with those first nations, that there's a need for greater forest development planning and better engagement of individuals from those first nations communities in that planning. There's a need to develop the business expertise so that first nations can take better advantage of those forest tenures.

There's a need for expertise, including forest technicians, financial planning for business expansion and marketing of potential forest products that could be manufactured because there's an access to fibre.

[1515]

There's a need for skill sets that become relevant when we're looking at trying to address the very difficult circumstances before us when we look at the mountain pine beetle epidemic. We know there's a need to build skills in land use planning and in being able to document traditional knowledge so that can be taken into account when we're looking at land use planning.

Land use planning is a pretty complex exercise in this day and age. There are lots of technological advancements that assist us in that, whether it's geographic information systems or it's other technologies we can take advantage of in land use planning. But there's also a need in working with first nations communities to be able to incorporate some of their traditional knowledge, the knowledge of their elders, in how that process goes forward. We need skill sets within those communities to take advantage of the knowledge that the elders are able to provide, as well as to combine that knowledge with some of the assistance that modern technology can provide.

When we speak with first nations, we see there's a keen interest in opportunities in aquaculture. But again, there's a need for training opportunities, and there's a need for first nations to be able to control their own destiny in respect of some of those economic opportunities.

When we look at social program management, there's no question that we are better engaged with first nations now than we have ever been when we're looking at education for aboriginal students, when we're looking at issues of child development, when we're looking at the difficult issues of child protection and how we best support families.

Aboriginal communities, first nations — they need to be and they certainly want to be directly involved in the development of policy and in the delivery of services in those important areas. Yet we find that there are additional needs for training. There are additional needs for building of capacity to be effectively involved in the delivery of those services.

I could obviously go on, Madam Speaker. There's a good long list, and the skill sets that will be desired and are desired in first nations communities to better engage in the new relationship with government are the same skill sets that government finds it needs in order to engage in that discussion. It will take a period of time to ensure that that capacity builds. It won't happen overnight.

But what we are doing is embarking upon the path of building that capacity over time. We do, I think, often focus on the challenge that's ahead of us, the need to build capacity over a period of time. It's easy for us to say that we need capacity in this area and that we need people with these skill sets or those skill sets.

Sometimes I think we get a bit discouraged in terms of the scope of the challenge ahead, but it's important to recognize the progress that's actually been made over the last number of years in terms of aboriginal participation in post-secondary education, for example, where we have incredible graduates coming out of our post-secondary institutions, returning to their communities and making strong, innovative contributions to first nations communities around the province. So it is important that we recognize those success stories as we look to build and add capacity in the future.

[1520]

As I've said, building capacity will enhance first nations participation in land and resource planning, in decision-making and in the implementation of agreed decisions. Building capacity will mean that first nations are better able to look much more to their own communities rather than hire outside consultants and specialists for the expertise that's needed to conduct their business and manage their affairs. I think we've tended to say, in this conversation around the need to build capacity, that there's a desire to get rid of the consultants.

That's in no way meant to disparage the work that the very many people do who are working with first nations now but aren't aboriginal. There are many dedicated individuals that are working with first nations around the province and are sincere — incredibly sincere and dedicated — in their efforts to help first nations move forward with economic development opportunities, with the delivery of social programs.

But I think we inherently recognize — I hope we inherently recognize — that those communities are going to be much stronger if they're able to rely on people who have grown up in the community, who intimately know the community, to assist in delivering or in exercising those skills within the community — to look at economic opportunity, to look at social opportunity going forward. That's the reason that we need to build that internal capacity.

Madam Speaker, the legislation establishes a corporation. It's a corporation independent of government but with a requirement to publicly report strategic plans, annual reports and audited financial statements. Seven directors will be appointed to form the first board of directors. They will oversee the corporation, and they will ensure that the purposes and the principles of the trust are upheld. Those principles and those purposes are set out in detail in the act to guide the board of directors in getting this fund up and running.

In looking at those purposes and principles, we must recognize that above all, the directors will ensure that the funding supports the capacity-building needs

[ Page 3138 ]

of first nations as identified by first nations. The organizations that make up the First Nations Leadership Council — the First Nations Summit, the B.C. Assembly of First Nations and the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs — will be represented by three members on the board of directors. Then, the First Nations Leadership Council as a whole will jointly select two additional directors based on federal and provincial board appointment guidelines. The province will also select two directors based on skills and experience.

The directors will then be responsible for soliciting and considering the advice of first nations to set priorities and to develop a strategic plan that will guide how the funds will be accessed, what the goals are in terms of building capacity, how the corporation and the board of directors will measure how they're meeting those goals and whether they're meeting those goals.

They will develop three-year strategic plans. They will review that rolling plan on an annual basis and publish an annual report so that they can measure whether or not progress is being made in building capacity and enabling first nations to better participate in discussions with government, to better participate in pursuing economic opportunities, to better participate in the delivery and enhancement of the delivery of social programs for first nations.

The directors will also appoint an independent review committee to examine the state of the fund every five years — again, an additional opportunity to review and see whether or not this overarching goal of building capacity within first nations is being reached. The report of that independent review committee's findings will be part of the public record. So it's clear that the legislation is based on sound public accountability measures with the goal of supporting first nations to achieve greater self-reliance in their communities and across British Columbia.

[1525]

As we put this fund in place, and as we look to the future and the opportunities that the fund might provide, it is important to reflect on what has happened over the course of the last year with the new relationship. I think all of us get frustrated from time to time. We'd like to see what we call tangible results faster. We'd like to go into any first nations community in the province and be able to point to the specific things that we can consider to be evidence of a new relationship. But a relationship, by its very nature, is something that evolves.

Certainly, it has evolved very positively over the course of this last year, as we have had an unprecedented level of engagement with first nations in trying to come to terms with what our mutual obligations are to work with one another.

We are having very constructive discussions with the First Nations Leadership Council and, in doing so, are trying to address some of those very difficult issues around fulfilling the government's obligation to consult when we're making decisions that impact aboriginal rights, including aboriginal title interests. Those discussions will continue to have more meat brought on to them.

We have had some incredible successes in the course of the last year. One that I certainly want to highlight and one that I think will benefit ultimately from this New Relationship fund is the transformative change accord that was signed with the federal government, which the Premier and members of the First Nations Leadership Council signed at the conclusion of the first ministers meeting in Kelowna back in November of 2005.

That transformative change accord came about…. It's important to recognize that B.C. is the only province that actually signed an accord with the federal government at the end of that first ministers meeting. And it's critically important that we recognize that it was a tripartite accord — that it involved both levels of government as well as the First Nations Leadership Council. It came about because first nations in British Columbia and the province of British Columbia, as we approached the first ministers meeting, were working together.

When the Premier was doing the work leading to the first ministers meeting in Kelowna, the consistent question was meeting with first nations leaders and saying: "What is it you hope to see as a result of this first ministers meeting?" It was a historic opportunity to bring together provincial leaders, federal leaders, territorial leaders and aboriginal leaders from across the country.

We had a cooperative effort that I don't think would have been possible but for The New Relationship and the mutual respect we have built in the months since the new relationship as a concept first arose. That allowed us to move away from the first ministers meeting with a transformative change accord that commits us to working together to ensure that we have specific plans in place to close the socioeconomic gaps that exist between first nations and the non-aboriginal population in British Columbia and in Canada.

We'll have specific plans in place pursuant to that accord to eliminate the gap that exists in educational outcomes, to eliminate the gaps that exist in terms of health outcomes, in terms of housing and economic opportunity, and it's allowed us a foundation on which we can move forward.

I've mentioned that we've seen significant opportunities, increased opportunities, for first nations to be engaged in forestry activity in the province. We're seeing significant engagement of first nations as we strive to develop the plans necessary to address the mountain pine beetle epidemic. We need to make no mistake about it. That epidemic has horrendous impacts for first nations communities, which in many cases have been there for thousands of years living off that land base that now is being so tragically impacted by the mountain pine beetle.

[1530]

We're engaged with first nations, and while we don't always agree — we don't always disagree either — and while we recognize that there are challenges we have to confront as we move forward and try to develop the plans to address the mountain pine beetle,

[ Page 3139 ]

the simple fact is that we're doing that together. That is what is new, and that is what is critical.

We've made significant progress on the treaty front. We now have six agreements-in-principle that have been signed since 2003. I'm hopeful that we're getting close to another, and our task ahead is to make sure we're making progress towards final agreements. Again, I'm hopeful.

I've moved away from trying to put time lines on those things because that's a recipe for being wrong, but we are making progress, and we are engaged with first nations in how we try to break through some of the final barriers that are there to getting to final treaties. I am confident that we will get to final treaties and that some of the goodwill and the trust that is being built through the new relationship will assist us immeasurably in getting to those final treaties.

But we need to build on these successes. Looking forward, we recognize that we have a long way to go for our relationship to be the constructive one we envision. But it's clear that we are committed to walking this path together — this path of promise, really a path of prosperity with first nations — now and into the future.

In establishing the New Relationship fund, we're providing a significant, tangible example of how we can work together in terms of how this initiative has been developed, but also a very significant and tangible tool that will be available to better enable first nations to engage with the province in the evolution of the new relationship.

With that, I will look forward to hearing the comments of other members. I know that there is a good deal of interest in this initiative, and certainly my belief is that members across the floor are generally supportive. They may have some questions in committee stage, but I look forward to the comments of all members of the House as we move forward with this significant and historic shift, this new relationship between the province and first nations here in British Columbia.

S. Fraser: I would like to acknowledge the minister's statements that we are on record as being supportive of The New Relationship — of the document and of the trust. This is a good-news day, and yesterday was a good-news day.

We were getting a little bit antsy about what was happening. The new relationship, of course, was first announced not that long ago. It was early last year, and it was quite a surprise in a lot of ways. In a lot of ways it was a total about-face from policies of the government in the previous term, and policies of the Premier — a welcome about-face.

As we saw the commitments made around the $100 million — which was, I think, in September of 2005 — we've got to a point where the clock is ticking to March 31, 2006, which is, I think, nine days from now. So seeing the announcement that the trust was actually being put into place was a relief to many in the province, certainly to many on this side of the House, because if nine days further had passed, it would have, from what I understand, gone up in smoke. So I'm happy, happy, happy that this happened.

Bill 11 has the potential to make good on this government's promise of a new relationship and to follow through with the ideas expressed in the new approach by government towards first nations in this province. We are glad to see what appears to be this about-face.

[1535]

There are some very, very high expectations in first nations communities around the new relationship in British Columbia — among aboriginals and non-aboriginals alike. Capacity problems are widely recognized as inhibiting progress of first nations communities. Without addressing them, first nations won't be able to truly engage as partners with government. This extends, in particular, to treaty negotiations, issues surrounding natural resources and resource uses in traditional territories and achieving essential levels of education and health security. We hope that this fund will reconcile some of the many outstanding issues of first nations in British Columbia.

I am pleased that we saw the introduction of Bill 11 yesterday, and I'm pleased to stand here today to speak to second reading of the New Relationship Trust Act. With its introduction and first reading in the House yesterday, there was, as I've mentioned, a collective sigh of relief throughout the province.

I think the proposed makeup of the board of directors is particularly promising. The strong representation of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, the Assembly of First Nations in B.C. and the B.C. Summit bodes well, I think, for the future of how this trust will be administered.

I'd like to thank and to acknowledge, in particular, several people. We've seen the work done here where the Leadership Council has come together, those three organizations. There have been a lot of people responsible for that who should, rightly so, be proud. A few that I know of in particular are Chief Stewart Phillip; Grand Chief Edward John; A-in-chut — that's Chief Shawn Atleo; Dave Porter; and Chief Doug Kelly. There are so many others, but they have set an example, and I think they've also set, in a lot of ways, role models for a lot of people in British Columbia — both aboriginal and non-aboriginal.

The New Relationship trust that we're dealing with today, this act — I don't want it to be confused with the new relationship. The New Relationship Trust Act is dealing with $100 million. That is to go towards capacity-building. There are many, many needs in first nations communities and in the aboriginal communities and peoples in British Columbia.

I've been spending a lot of time travelling throughout the province trying to learn as much as I can about those needs. There are complex issues. There are treaty issues, there are resource use issues, there are health issues, and there are education issues. There are countless issues that need to be addressed.

So $100 million may sound like a lot. It's certainly not an insignificant amount, but the needs of many of

[ Page 3140 ]

these communities are great. It will be a challenge for the directors of this new trust to determine the criteria for access to the moneys available here, because the needs are so great. I know there will be a controversy over this amongst first nations and others about which is the best use possible, what is meant by capacity-building. The minister is correct: that's a term that would be hard to pin down. It would be hard to find a direct definition in any dictionary.

The New Relationship trust, the $100 million, is not the new relationship. The document that came out early last year, the New Relationship document, speaks to many things. One piece of that is capacity-building, so it's heartening to see this coming about.

As I've said, we are supportive of the new relationship on this side of the House. I have said to the minister and to the Premier that I would not be obstructive. I would not get in the way of any true reconciliation and relationship-building with first nations. There is a lot to be made up for. There's a history, as the minister has pointed out, that none of us should be proud of.

[1540]

With the new relationship, there is an obligation to put more than just words out. There is meat on the bones required here, and this New Relationship Act is, I think, the first significant bit of meat on those bones.

There have still been policies of this government that do not reflect the new relationship. There still seems to be a great disconnect in many ways between ministers and ministries and this New Relationship document, which was the birth of this act. We're seeing great disparity issues throughout the province. We're seeing issues that are of tragic consequence — the highway of tears, Highway 16; the seeming disparity between how things were dealt with, with aboriginal communities and non and with aboriginal peoples and non.

We were given a heads-up, all of us were, almost two years ago with an Amnesty report, Stolen Sisters , that spoke directly to some of these problems and the discrepancies in western Canada, in specific, and B.C., of course, is included in that. It should have raised flags for all of us. We had the one-year anniversary of that Amnesty International report last October, I believe, in 2005. The federal government at that point had put forward, I think, a $5 million obligation towards trying to deal with that discrepancy. I know the Saskatchewan government put some resources forward too. But we hadn't seen that here. It was raised in this House, and it didn't seem to catch anyone's attention.

I know the tragedy of the missing women along that highway. It's continuing. I said this in the House once before, but if such a thing were happening in, say, a community like Shaughnessy, I don't think we would need to see marches on the highway to get the attention of this House, of the authorities involved or of the press. So I am hoping that the recognition of a new relationship will take us beyond that.

There are a few things in the document, in the act itself, that have…. I won't call them lacking, but I think they warrant notice. As the minister said, we'll be bringing these up at committee stage, but I will make note of a few of these. I don't mean this specifically as criticism, but as constructive criticism, maybe.

As a comment, setting the terms of reference that have yet to be made is going to be an awfully big challenge. As I've mentioned already, the needs in the communities are great. There have been needs that have been created or problems that have been exacerbated over the last few years — cuts to native courtworkers and transition homes. I mean, issues around social assistance have led to actually greater needs and greater challenges in first nations communities in British Columbia now. There is catch-up to be done with this turnaround by this government, and again, I mean this in a positive term. I like this turnaround.

The way that these funds will be used to meet the needs of the communities at the ground level is going to be a significant challenge. I know that even in the New Relationship document there was mentioned more than once the need for dispute resolutions, and there may be a case for that here. There may be times when impasses are reached in trying to deal with the great number of needs of the many communities. There are some 200 different bands in B.C. They all have in some cases common and in some cases unique needs, and they're all critical to those first nations. So that may be a challenge.

There may be some third-party mechanism that may be thought of to help deal with dispute resolution, as such. Like I say, that was actually laid out in a general term more than once in the New Relationship document. It does seem to be absent in the actual bill, so that may be to come.

[1545]

Also, I am happy with

section 3 of the bill. It's quite lengthy on dealing with public accountability. I'm grateful for this, because there are always skeptics amongst all of us — aboriginal and non. They have voiced those opinions to me and, I'm sure, to others about where this $100 million will go.

I am very pleased with the makeup of the board of directors. There's a very strong first nations makeup on the board, so it will be somewhat different than many different planning processes that we've seen in the province by giving first nations a significant say in the use of these funds.

I did note, though, that there was no mechanism for the way the corporation is set up for freedom-of-information access. I don't know if that was an oversight.

The total transparency of such an important act as this is, I think, important because it keeps the credibility high. I mean this with no disrespect to anyone here. This is to help to ensure that no one can come back later and make comments that may be inaccurate. Certainly, transparency is a very good thing. There may be some work needed there, but there are mechanisms in place that are addressing some of those issues.

I've noticed in my travels across the province and in speaking with aboriginal groups — first nations — that there are certainly needs that will not be dealt with

[ Page 3141 ]

through this act. The act is very specific in addressing first nations capacity-building.

Of course, most of us are aware, or should be aware, of the great needs of those aboriginal peoples that are living off reserve in urban settings also. Greater Vancouver — I believe there are 25,000 aboriginal people living in that one region, which is a very large group. The needs in the urban sectors are often quite significant. My hope as critic for Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation is that we will see some parallel resources, that this not the end of what we will see towards dealing with capacity problems and with some very, very dire situations in some cases.

There are some groups doing great work to assist and to raise the level of health, education and support for aboriginal and non-aboriginal people in urban centres — friendship centres and such. They also need to be recognized, I think, through the new relationship, first nations being a first step being dealt with, at least in part, in this act. It is a very good first step, but we'll need to see parallel resources, I believe, coming forward here to deal with some of the realities we have in this province and with the great disparity that we have seen.

I'm hoping that maybe some of the policies that were put in over the last four or five years might be relooked at. The removal of native courtworkers and such has had a significant effect, specifically on aboriginal peoples.

[1550]

We've seen other areas that the new relationship is not really reflected in, and I'm hoping that this one act is a step that might cause some serious reflection on some of the policies that are still in place or the lackings that are still there. In my travels to first nations across the province, on the ground I'm still hearing a lack of any new relationship. It is something that has been heard of and read about, but when it comes to meaningful consultation from ministers and ministries, it's simply the worst of the old relationship.

Even in this House we've raised issues around the use of pesticides on traditional territories and that sort of thing — without any meaningful consultation. These incidents fly in the face of the spirit and the intent, I believe, of the new relationship.

In treaty — and not all first nations, of course, are involved in treaty…. There are Douglas treaty issues that the minister reflected on that are really outside of the modern-day treaty process. But in the treaty process today, one of the criticisms I'm hearing is that the new relationship is silent on treaty in a lot of ways. There have been no new resources put towards treaty at the treaty table by many of the first nations I know of that are involved at the treaty table. They have seen no change since this government's commitment to a new relationship.

Maybe the act here, the trust, will help in some ways with capacity from the first nations position. But the new relationship is larger than just between aboriginal and non-aboriginal. I think the new relationship has to be between how we act and react to each other and how ministries and ministers act and react to first nations needs that are laid out in the new relationship. This is about security and prosperity and doing the right thing for all British Columbians. Certainty in economic ventures or in treaty issues or in land use issues benefits all British Columbians. The minister is right. No one is going anywhere.

I got a few calls in the last month regarding issues like the shackling of youth in detention centres, native youth who are involved in sweat ceremonies. The minister, rightly so, raised the issue of some of the past ceremonies that have great tradition and are spiritual in nature amongst first nations that were banned not that long ago.

When I hear of youth…. Part of their spiritual rehabilitation, if you will, is a traditional ceremony which is being allowed. The use of shackles — it just rings of the worst of the old again. So I hope things like this will be addressed and looked at seriously as the issues come forward from first nations, because that is the new relationship. It is about communications. It is still not just about $100 million, because at some point $100 million will have been spent. I hope we all don't think in this House that that means we are done with the new relationship.

The minister raised the issue of Kelowna. I also attended Kelowna, and I was proud to be there. I think there were a lot of positive steps made. Again, expectation levels rose through the roof for aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities, first nations and non-first nations communities, as far as bringing some certainty and addressing some of the wrongs of the past. Indeed, reconciliation is about atoning for the past.

[1555]

We have a change of government federally, and there was some mention that there might be some changes made to those agreements. My hope as critic for Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation is that the provincial government will not be weak-kneed here. They will be pushing this new federal government to live up to those agreements. That is an expectation, I believe, that you don't have to read between the lines in through the new relationship, which should be there. First nations communities, leaders, aboriginal peoples in B.C. should be able to expect this government to fight to make sure those obligations made by the federal government prior to the election are met by this new government.

Last year we saw bills introduced here — this is post–new relationship — and the bills specifically excluded first nations involvement in a consulting role, which is clearly laid out in the new relationship as something that should change. This side of the House tried to put those in — I assumed it was an oversight — and we did not have any success.

I found it disappointing, which would be an understatement. I thought it a contradiction to the words, spirit and intent of the new relationship that brought so many high expectations. I have heard over and over again from first nations leaders, from aboriginal peoples across the province since then that they were also

[ Page 3142 ]

very disappointed. Again, with this new relationship, that sort of thing should stop. We should start living up to the words that are in that document, which will provide certainty and fairness for all British Columbians.

Part of the new relationship, as laid out in the New Relationship document, refers to getting beyond this age of litigation. I may be off by one or two, but the last time I looked, I think there were 44 cases before the courts — some of them just dealing with this government's inability to recognize a first nation as a first nation. Sometimes these decisions have been in favour of first nations, and this government has gone on to appeal them. I have a problem with that. I do believe that it flies in the face of the spirit and the intent of the New Relationship document.

Litigation has other problems. Not only does it fly in the face of any sort of new relationship — and being the worst of the old relationship — but relying on the courts is a very expensive venture. It has created a lot of economic burden for a number of first nations involved in the treaty process, for instance. As it's often played out, if a first nation is forced to go to the courts to fight for recognition as a first nation, it's a very costly thing. It can be dauntingly so. It can come out of any future settlement that is made, which I believe is unfair.

Also, there is a practice of government walking away from the treaty table once an issue is before the courts. I'm certainly no lawyer, and I'm being respectful to the lawyers across the way and actually on this side too — yes, Madam Speaker. However, I have a moral problem with taking a position as government…. I won't just single you out here, but I mean, any government that refuses to negotiate should a first nation end up going to court or be backed into a corner to go to court to deal with proving their identity, for instance…. Stopping negotiations while that court case is in place seems punitive in some ways.

I think it's the right of all British Columbians, the right of all Canadians, to fall back on the court system, if need be, in an issue that is deemed unfair. There should be no penalty for that. In this case it actually de facto becomes a monetary penalty, and I believe those practices are not in keeping with the new relationship and the words and spirit and intent of the New Relationship document. So I would hope that we'll see with this first tangible step in this bill of $100 million, a step in the right direction towards changing some of these somewhat draconian actions.

[1600]

The minister referred to some forest and range agreements which have been negotiated — over a hundred now, depending on how you would identify or define a forest and range agreement: FRA or FRO. There are probably some good things in these agreements. But they are not a replacement for treaty. They are laid out specifically in the new relationship agreement, but in my discussions with first nations that have been trying to consider whether or not to sign off on them — or some that have already — there is some discomfort with them. There has been a very rigid process that seems not to be open to negotiation. The rules are set. They're laid out not by consultation but by government.

It is very difficult for a first nation community that has great needs — and, in a lot of cases, great disparity and great responsibility by the chief and council to take care of that — to sign these, because they're watching the resource they may be negotiating for disappear by the truckload out of their traditional territories, in some cases. The signing of these things is often equated as a gun to the head. So they're not always a good-news story. They should not always be lauded as such.

They are fraught with problems in many cases, they are not necessarily fair, and they are not necessarily in keeping with any new relationship. In some cases, these sorts of negotiations, if I can call them that, are the worst of the old relationship.

Other issues that have come up around the new relationship that probably, in theory, should be helped by this bill, in capacity-building, are around land use planning. What has come up from numerous chiefs in the interior is that some of the land use planning has been done over a period of maybe the last decade and has serious omissions at the table from first nations. Some of that traditional knowledge, that wisdom, that history that could come from first nations communities and elders was lacking in these plans. So those plans, if they're the basis for decisions around resource use and around uses on traditional territories, are flawed because of that.

The recognition that I heard today that the acknowledgment and the meaningful consultation with first nations around traditional knowledge are important…. That is another issue that should be relooked at. If land use planning has, indeed, occurred without significant consultation with first nations, aboriginal communities that are involved, then I suggest that those are flawed, and they should be….

Deputy Speaker: Member, are you the designated speaker?

S. Fraser: I am.

Deputy Speaker: Okay.

S. Fraser: I'll either speak much slower, Madam Speaker…. I promise I will not take up two hours.

What should not be lost in my response to the bill is that I am thankful that this bill has come forward. This side of the House has supported the new relationship. It may be unique, and I may be talking myself out of a job in some ways as a critic by saying that, but I don't think so. There are so many examples where the meat is still not on the bones, and our parliamentary system here is requiring me and this side of the House as critics — constructively — to ensure that there is something tangible to this and that the new relationship is not just about $100 million. It's much bigger than that.

[1605]

We must see that resources are put to the ministers and ministries that inextricably make decisions with

[ Page 3143 ]

first nations and about first nations, and we have not yet seen that. There is a disconnect there. As long as that disconnect exists, there will not be a new relationship.

I'd like to see this as a beginning. I'd like to see the new relationship in British Columbia set an example to Canada, and while the act we're discussing today is a first step, it is not yet an example. Moneys have been spent in the past to try to deal with the wrongs of the past, and that won't cut it with a lot of the first nations that I know. I know there are issues. There will be a march starting in April — on April 5, I think — from the west coast of Vancouver Island, and there will be a cedar log travelling to Ottawa. It is to deal with residential school issues.

This is about reconciliation, and the new ministry that is bringing forward this bill is entitled Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. The reconciliation that the cedar log will represent for first nations is regarding residential schools and the compensation that was guaranteed through the Kelowna process. That compensation, first of all, is in question, I guess. We haven't really seen it in any significant way, so I would hope this government, this minister and this Premier will be pushing the federal government and supporting the issues brought forward by this symbolic march in the context of this new relationship.

Let's be working together. The resources being put towards atoning or reconciling what happened in the residential school systems may be a good start, but it is woefully lacking and is a double standard. Similar compensation for similar abuses for non-aboriginal peoples has been much higher. It's a much higher level of compensation, so that double standard is not part of any new relationship. It is the worst of the old relationship. I will be urging this government and this minister to take a role there in ensuring that recognition is put where recognition should go and that resources are put to bring about reconciliation, which is the namesake of this ministry.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

We on this side of the House hope that the new relationship will not stop at this $100 million. We encourage the minister and the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation to take the initiative to create parallel networks of support that foster and promote the work of the trust and to deal with the transition needs of getting these resources out. There's a lot of work yet ahead, I think, before we'll see any resources from the trust going and actually hitting the ground in first nations communities.

[1610]

The needs in some of these communities are so great, and in some cases, there's no time to wait. One-time investment is not enough. While we support the intent of the new relationship, we recognize that the success of the new relationship relies on a continued dialogue with aboriginal peoples on the basis of recognized aboriginal rights and title.

With that, I shall sit down.

J. McIntyre: I rise with great honour and pride today to speak in favour of this bill that creates the New Relationship Trust Act. I want to really start by giving my thanks to the minister, actually, for his comments in his introduction. He shed some light and some insights into what this relationship is about and what capacity-building is about. He spoke about a theme of our history — of our sad history, actually — of continuing denial of rights. I think he was quite correct about all that, and I hope to speak a little bit more now about the present and going forward.

I also want to make note of…. I was very pleased that the member of the opposition from Alberni-Qualicum told the House now today that he was happy — happy, happy — about the introduction of this bill. I, for one, am thrilled. If this government can do things that make this opposition happy, I am very proud to be part of this. I like to hear that.

Interjections.

J. McIntyre: Yeah. It's a new approach.

Actually, I'd like to reassure the member that…. He talked several times about this — hoping that this was about more than the money or the $100 million. I think even as a private member and a member of this government, I would like to reassure you that this is about an approach, an approach of reconciliation and respect. It's not just about money. So if I want to make one point clear, I hope I can do that.

I think, like many of us in the House, my constituency has a significant indigenous population. I'm very proud, as I was saying, to stand up in the House to be part of a government that is taking, I think, historic steps to properly acknowledge the importance that first nations play in British Columbia's history and, likely more importantly, the role they have in paving our future, especially when we're working collaboratively.

In addition to In-SHUCK-ch N'Quat'qua and others, my riding of West Vancouver–Garibaldi is home to two of the four host nations for the 2010 Olympic Winter Games. That's the Squamish and Lillooet Nations. I think, quite frankly, it would be fair to say that without the support of our aboriginal population, our province wouldn't be hosting those games, and all of us would not be able to enjoy the benefits that we have already and will be enjoying through the next four years and beyond. So I think it's very important to start off by acknowledging their contribution to us.

I was actually in Prague for the awarding of those games where people like Chief Gibby Jacob were present, and they were very much a part — and certainly the cultural component, I know, was very much a part — of our being awarded those games. Through that bid process and now, of course, all the many opportunities we have for hosting events, I'm already seeing cooperation with all levels of government, whether that's municipalities, districts, local communities, businesses or our first nations communities.

I was so proud. I have to tell you that when I was watching the closing ceremonies in Torino on my tele-

[ Page 3144 ]

vision, there was a huge spotlight on Chief Gibby Jacob of the Squamish Nation, and I recognized Bill Williams, another chief, amongst the dancers. There they were in the spotlight in Torino, in essence, taking our torch as we go forward in our quadrennial. I couldn't have been prouder.

Further through this collaboration, we've seen things like the creation of the Squamish-Lillooet cultural centre, which I've mentioned in this House before. It will be a new and very attractive draw for the fast-growing aboriginal tourism industry that we have. I believe that that's the first time two nations like that have joined together in an economic initiative like developing that cultural centre. Again, I continue to be so proud of that.

As an aside, I'd also like to mention that that aboriginal tourism industry blueprint that we've developed here in British Columbia is now a model across the country and probably beyond. We're getting lots of requests for the work that's been done on that — again, another moment of pride and another example of collaboration.

As the minister mentioned, there has been interest, there have been questions since we've announced this new reconciliation. We're talking about this and the trust that was announced in our throne speech, and he said there's been sort of a need to find some tangible benefits, and I agree. I think we probably agree on that. I really feel that even in my own riding I'm already seeing those very tangible benefits.

I've seen a number of economic partnerships forming before my very eyes, as I say. For instance, the CRB Logging Co. is now working with Lil'wat nation on a number of forestry initiatives. There are some first nations apprenticeships in the construction industry on the creation of the Sea to Sky Highway. This sort of goes on and on. Lyle Leo, who is an economic development officer with Lil'wat, has just won a national award for economic development, honoured by his peers across the country. I was actually very proud. I was part of that submission in putting forward his name for that award — a great example of alliances that are being created now, as we move forward.

[1615]

In the past when we talked about first nations or relationships with first nations, sometimes, I'm ashamed to say, the first thing that came to mind would be blockades or examples of confrontation. That's not exactly what I think of as an example of a constructive relationship, and I am so thankful that we've come a long, long way from those days that were actually not that long ago.

I think the Premier of our province deserves a lot of credit, because I think that a lot of the change…. Actually, the member before me mentioned there has been some change in our approach, and I am so proud of that fact. I think that we're starting to see the benefits and examples of that today.

Let's talk for a moment about the New Relationship Trust Act. This act, I think, is innovative. It's establishing, if you can believe it, a not-for-profit corporation to support capacity-building for our first nations. I suggest that's unheard of. Has anybody heard of a corporation that's been started to build capacity for first nations? Anyone heard of that? Hearing none.

So what is the objective of this act? What do we hope to achieve? Quite simply, it's about providing opportunity for our indigenous peoples to fulfil opportunities that have not always been available. In order for both first nations and our province to continue to thrive and progress, and I say "and progress," we need to allow aboriginal peoples to directly — I notice the minister emphasized that — participate in the management of their land and resources. It's also imperative that they can fully utilize the economic, social and cultural opportunities that are available and should be available to all — that is, to everyone in this province.

This $100 million initiative will afford first nations a concept called capacity-building. Again, the minister, I thought, made great reference. What exactly is that? It is a complex term. You know what? In its simplest terms, it means providing the tools and the training so that aboriginal communities can be involved and flourish in areas concerning their social and economic development.

By providing the seed money, our province is helping B.C.'s first nations achieve greater self-reliance and independence. Hopefully, this goal will allow communities to rely less on outside consultants and companies and those living outside their very communities and more on their own initiative and their growing skills to take advantage of the many opportunities that I notice the minister referred to in his words today.

We need to allow first nations the opportunity to participate in the decision-making process concerning their own land and resources, and capacity-building will allow them to achieve this. It also provides for communities to develop their own information management systems, as an example, leading the way to self-management on economic and social fronts.

The New Relationship Trust Act was introduced after consultation with aboriginal leaders. They told us that they desire to develop their own skill sets instead of relying on others. You know, I thought about this, and personally, I cannot think of a greater gift to anyone in society — and I mean anyone — than tools to foster independence. Think about it.

While there was no legal obligation to do so, our government believed the right decision was made to consult with First Nations Leadership Council during the development of the purposes and principles of this fund. How can you forge new relationships without dialogue, without consultation? Our government has also worked in partnership with stakeholders to develop the $100 million fund. We met not only with First Nations Leadership Council but, I believe, also with the Union of B.C. Municipalities — UBCM — the B.C. Business Council and the federal government.

This $100 million will be well invested. It will not be squandered. That is why we insisted a board of directors be appointed whose actions will be available for all British Columbia taxpayers to see. This seven-

[ Page 3145 ]

member board, which is largely composed of members from first nations, will not invest any money without first listening to the public and to aboriginal communities. These directors, I believe, will and should be appointed based on their skill set. It's vital that they have the training and financial management expertise needed to handle this responsibility, and they'll also be required to be familiar, of course, with first nations issues and communities.

[1620]

As the minister mentioned, the board will be required to implement a three-year strategic plan administrating the fund. I think anyone who knows anything about running a successful business will know that a solid business plan is required. This is welcome news. In addition, there will be annual updates and a five-year review. All of this is mandated. While independent of government, this non-profit corporation will be — and I know that's some of the concern — publicly accountable for their progress in enhancing capacity. Financial statements will be audited and made available to everyone.

I'm pleased to see that this fund will be available for all first nations communities to utilize. In creating this fund, our government is allowing the board of directors the flexibility to define what constitutes first nations and who's a member. The definition is complex, and yet it's likely needed to include all — urban and rural, on and off reserve. It's expected that the directors will take into account the needs of the whole community.

It must be noted that it's one-time funding, and it's anticipated to be managed over the long term. It is hoped that the fund will be expanded, and I believe the legislation allows for other sources of funding that can be appropriated by the board.

In closing, I'd just like to stress the importance of this New Relationship Trust Act. It builds on our September throne speech commitment to forge a new relationship of reconciliation that's honourable, that's constructive, that's grounded in immediate and practical progress for all British Columbians. We want to push to expand that vision across the country. At the same speech we also mentioned our goal — what I think should be termed a noble goal — of eliminating within ten years the inequalities that have plagued first nations and indigenous people throughout Canada's history.

Along with our commitment to the Kelowna accord which the Premier has been so dedicated to achieving, again, as the minister revealed to us, this act is a clear and present demonstration to our commitment to help improve the lives of all first nations people. While it is necessary to provide a strong system of supports, I feel it is more important to provide all people with the skills they need to thrive independently. This act is a hand up for British Columbia's first nations. This is a great and a welcome opportunity to demonstrate good faith, and it's far too important not to support.

[Applause.]

Thank you, thank you. My heartfelt thanks to the Premier for establishing the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. My thanks to the Finance Minister for setting aside the $100 million for capacity-building in the throne speech last fall, or to the budget; and to the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation for all his efforts in introducing this new initiatives trust act; and perhaps most of all to the many chiefs who have joined with us to support this initiative.

I'm very proud today to be part of a government team that has the courage and the foresight to do what I know in my heart is right. We all need to have faith, and I, for one, look forward to walking the path forward together.

N. Simons: It's a pleasure to rise in the House to speak in support of Bill 11, to speak in support of the work that was undertaken to accomplish this. Obviously — not obviously, but I'm sure we'll work out any flaws that might exist; we'll do that in a collaborative way…. But ultimately, I think it's a sign that the government is actually going to back up their commitment to a new relationship with legislation, with a trust and with ideas on how first nations can help themselves reach the same economic and social standards that we enjoy throughout the province.

[1625]

Having worked with first nations for most of my career, I understand some of the significant challenges that face communities, whether it be due to historical injustices, residential school systems or simply economic hardship. All of those factors can be addressed in some way with the assistance of funding and programs that may be established under the trust. I commend the government for coming through with this legislation, and I think it might explain why, when the north Island–coastal initiative fund and the other initiatives did not include representation of first nations on their boards of directors, perhaps it was in anticipation of this legislation.

So I'll take back all those mean thoughts I had about the government ignoring…. I won't take back the mean thoughts I had about the member. No, I'm just kidding. Those remain securely in the vault.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

N. Simons: Madam Speaker, I was referring to the thoughts I had for the member for Kamloops–North Thompson.

Interjection.

N. Simons: I accept that. I shall continue.

Bill 11 establishes the management of $100 million under the auspices of a leadership council — essentially made up of representatives of the various first nations political organizations, as well as two appointed members from cabinet — and I think the accountability that's built in serves us all well. It serves anyone who's elected and anyone who's representing the people of the province. It serves us all well. I am

[ Page 3146 ]

pleased that it is broad enough to address the various social and economic needs of communities.

It is the beginning of what is likely to be a number of other initiatives, I'm hoping, that will be able to address some of the social inequalities that exist. I'm all in favour of assisting first nations to develop their own database systems and economic initiatives. I'm hoping that included in the bill will be an ability for first nations to help to address some of the staggering statistics that show not just the historical impacts of colonization but some of the more recent policies of government. If that can be accomplished through this act, we will all be well served.

Helping first nations to develop their own internal capacity should be something that the government encourages for all communities. Coming from the social service sector, I also hope that this act will assist the first nations in developing that capacity. It's been ignored by successive governments, and it needs to be addressed.

I think first nations are all, for the most part, pleased at this first step. Many chiefs and councillors have come to me and asked when they'd actually see physical or hard evidence of a new relationship, having heard of it for many months without any evidence to suggest that it existed. This may be the first of many steps, I'm hoping, with some encouragement by the opposition, to continue in this path towards what is ultimately our goal of reconciliation — not just for the sake of reconciliation, but for the sake of equality, for the sake of better relations, and for the sake of our children and their future, living in harmony with all cultures.

[Applause.]

So, for a number of reasons, and because I got applause there, I'll end my comments now, and I thank you for the opportunity, Madam Speaker, and for your patience and indulgence. With that, I will end my comments.

[1630]

J. Rustad: I am very pleased to rise today and speak to Bill 11 — a new relationship with first nations and the teeth that this puts behind it in terms of moving forward. Who would have thought just a few years ago, and thinking back ten years ago or even more, how far we've come over such a short period of time with this? I'd like to take a moment to go back and look at history because in my riding, the history with first nations is quite significant.

Fort St. James is celebrating its 200th birthday this year. I can think back to 200 years ago when the first settlers came and lived in that area and made relationships with the first nations. They started that new relationship then in building a future and building opportunities and coordinating and working together to be able to provide joint benefits to the people of the province and to the new people that are here. They opened their arms and welcomed the new settlers that came to live in the area.

Over time, unfortunately, that relationship became very complex. It saw some very difficult roadblocks. In particular, I think it was in the early 20th century when at one point, because of federal legislation, it was illegal for first nations to hold various cultural ceremonies. In fact, when some of the leaders in this province tried to have a potlatch, they were arrested. Their ceremonial garb was taken from them because of the laws that we had in place back in those days.

It wasn't until sometime in the '40s or '50s that, under public pressure, those laws were actually reversed. There's a history of a relationship that started off quite positive and quite strong in this province — one that was open, one that was hand in hand — which took quite a turn. It was a very difficult thing to overcome for many people, particularly in my neck of the woods, in Prince George–Omineca.

I think it was only in the 1960s when first nations had the right to vote and were given the right to vote. If you think about that, that's one of the fundamental cornerstones of our democracy. Yet for a significant portion of our population, they didn't have that right.

When you think about moving forward and you think about building a new relationship, it's so important to say that what we have done in the past obviously is not working. We need to look at being able to move forward. We need to build a bridge over that past. Building a new relationship is about just that.

The significant part of that is to be able to give some capacity — not capacity that we say you should have these skills or you should do this, but to give them the capacity to be able to build within their own communities, to be able to rebuild and to extend a hand to all of us in the province to be able to work together, to be able to build a future.

It reminds me of the words of Albert Einstein, who said that you can't solve a problem with the same level of thinking that created the problem. I see the new relationship and the steps that we are taking here as exactly that. We are stepping out of the box. We are bringing new thinking to the table. More importantly, we are bringing that in conjunction with our first nations. We're not bringing it to them; we're building it with them.

[1635]

We've seen examples of what happens when we work together, when mutual respect for cultural differences, mutual respect for the kinds of things that we need to have together…. I want to give one example. In Edmonton there's an educational facility called Amiskwaciy Academy. That was an example where, instead of us providing an education, we gave the first nations the tools to provide the education within our system. They took that opportunity, and they developed something that was quite remarkable. They entwined their cultural differences and their culture and their ceremony right within the education system.

They actually provided the same level of education as the rest but at an even higher level of education.

That academy has had phenomenal success. In particular, it was in 2001 where the grade 11 class went through to graduate in 2002 with 100-percent completion rates — 100 percent. In my riding there are com-

[ Page 3147 ]

pletion rates that are often in the 30 percents, and across the province I think it's around 42 percent. It shows the kind of opportunity that can be there when thinking goes outside of the box, when you extend outside of what we've done traditionally and are able to move forward with a new relationship.

I see some of that in my riding today. Just the other week I held a round table for skills training in Vanderhoof. In the round table I was very pleased that Chief Colleen Erickson from the Saik'uz First Nation attended, along with some other people from the first nation. They've been working with the school district, in conjunction with the community and also in conjunction with BCIT, to look at opportunities to create some trades training skills and trades training opportunities within the community.

That kind of thinking is exactly what building new relationships is all about. It's about being able to work together to find solutions that work for all of us in the province.

I know Chief Leonard Thomas of the Nak'azdli First Nation up in Fort St. James. They've always had a very good relationship with the community and with the people there, and they work hand in hand. It hasn't always been perfect. There have been difficulties, but I applaud the work they are doing and the future they're building hand in hand, side by side in those communities.

There are many other first nations communities in my riding, too many for me to mention here, but I want to mention one more. A portion of the first nation is within my riding, and a portion is within my colleagues' ridings, Prince George North and Prince George–Mount Robson. That is the Lheidli T'enneh First Nation and Chief Dominic Frederick. They have made some phenomenal progress over the years. Just recently they signed an agreement-in-principle, and I'm optimistic that that relationship is going to move forward in the very near future to a final agreement.

I'm optimistic because the steps we've taken in terms of building a new relationship have created an environment where those kinds of possibilities are there. It's not just because of some words or just because of some actions, but there's such a history of mistrust. There's a history of difficulties. And what we've done is extended a hand to say that we're willing to do what it takes to come to the table to work together to mutually find solutions.

For the people in my riding of Prince George–Omineca, it is so important to have those solutions. It's not just because of the challenges that are met but because those solutions help us all. They'll help us bring stability in the land base in forestry. They'll help us to bring some stability in the land base in terms of mining and oil and gas and in other opportunities that bring benefits to first nations as well as to all the people of my riding and the whole province. It is so critical that we take these steps to put the past behind us, to be able to build towards the future so that, walking together, we are able to have a bright future and are able to bring the promise.

Building capacity in this process is critical, and I am so pleased to see that our government has made these steps that have put $100 million on the table and said: "We want to work with you. We want to be able to find way