2010 Legislative Session: Second Session, 39th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the

Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, May 6, 2010

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 17, Number 5

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

May Day Parade in Port Coquitlam

M. Farnworth

Girl Guides of Canada

L. Reid

Maywell Wickheim

J. Horgan

Mining industry

J. Rustad

Faith in Action initiative

S. Simpson

Child and youth mental health

N. Letnick

Oral Questions

Special prosecutor in investigation of former Solicitor General

L. Krog

Hon. M. de Jong

S. Simpson

Investigation of election campaign for former Solicitor General

M. Farnworth

Hon. M. de Jong

K. Corrigan

Reappointment of Solicitor General

N. Macdonald

Hon. M. de Jong

J. Kwan

J. Horgan

D. Black

Petitions

S. Fraser

Reports from Committees

Special Committee to Appoint an Information and Privacy Commissioner

S. Cadieux

Petitions

J. Kwan

Reports from Committees

Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills

N. Letnick

Motions Without Notice

Appointment of Special Committee to Appoint a Chief Electoral Officer

Hon. M. de Jong

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 8 — Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources Statutes Amendment Act, 2010 (continued)

Hon. B. Lekstrom

J. Horgan

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 8 — Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources Statutes Amendment Act, 2010

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 5 — Zero Net Deforestation Act (continued)

N. Macdonald

Hon. P. Bell

B. Routley

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 5 — Zero Net Deforestation Act

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 18 — Haida Gwaii Reconciliation Act

Hon. G. Abbott

B. Simpson

Hon. P. Bell

S. Chandra Herbert

Bill 7 — Forests and Range Statutes Amendment Act, 2010

Hon. P. Bell

N. Macdonald

B. Simpson

D. Routley

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Education (continued)

Hon. M. MacDiarmid

R. Austin

D. Thorne

K. Corrigan

[ Page 5313 ]

THURSDAY, MAY 6, 2010

The House met at 1:36 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

N. Macdonald: On behalf of the member for Kootenay West, it's a pleasure to introduce a longtime servant of the constituents of Kootenay West, Elaine Whitehead. She's proud to be here with her grandchildren, Seth and Reece Whitehead. So please join me in making them welcome.

T. Lake: I have two separate delegations here to introduce today, and coincidentally, both are from Ottawa. Sometimes visitors from our nation's capital are viewed with a sense of wonder and curiosity, and today's guests will fall into that category. I mean, if nothing else, why would anyone choose to live in a city that has eight months of winter and four months of poor sledding when they could live a capital city like Victoria that enjoys green grass year-round? Not to mention that our visitors from Ontario are enjoying the NHL hockey they're watching here in B.C. and hope that one day they'll have a team of their own.

Joining us today is a senior staff member from the office of the federal Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, here for the 90th annual general meeting of the Canadian Meat Council. Will the House welcome today Meagan Murdock and her guest, Petra Tens.

Also, I have the great pleasure of welcoming for the first time into this House a very special person to me, my middle daughter, Stephanie Lake, visiting from the University of Ottawa where she is on the road to a veterinary career. I'd like to have the House please welcome my beautiful daughter Stephanie.

H. Lali: I have the pleasure of introducing some guests here who have been doing great work on behalf of the district of Lillooet and also the T'it'q'et Indian band. They're here meeting with ministers as well as ministry staff. They are Mayor Dennis Bontron; Coun. Kevin Anderson; Coun. Pat St. Dennis; Grant Loyer, who is the CAO; as well as retiring chief Bill Machell and the current incoming chief, Kevin Whitney. They're sitting in the members' gallery to my left. Would the House please give them a big warm Victoria welcome.

D. Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce 60 grade 5 students visiting the Legislative Assembly. They are outside somewhere. They're visiting from Ellendale Elementary School, one of the best schools in Surrey, in my riding of Surrey-Tynehead. Joining them are their teachers, Michael Ewen and Ms. Melanie McGillivray, and many parent volunteers who have taken time out of their busy

schedule to bring the students here to learn about the government and how everything works in Victoria. Would the House please make them very welcome.

R. Austin: Joining us in the gallery today is Conor Rogan. Conor is a local singer and songwriter from here in British Columbia. He's currently a participant in the Peak Performance project. He has travelled all over the world, throughout Asia and Australia, performing. He is a liberal arts transfer student at Douglas College, but he's more interested in learning lots about B.C. politics. This is his first visit to the Legislature, no doubt encouraged by his friend Angela Giuliano, who is one of our legislative assistants. Will everyone please join me in giving him a most warm welcome.

[1340]

M. Dalton: In the gallery today is my wife, Marlene. I want to thank her for all her love and support. We've been married 25 years this year, and she's been a very patient and merciful woman — yes. My son, Justin, is also visiting us for the first time. He's in between terms at SFU where he's finishing a degree in economics. He also works at the Burnaby Centre for Mental Health and Addictions. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

N. Letnick: Just to announce that this morning when I got to work, I was met by Carly Gilmore, a wonderful young lady from back in my home riding. It was a great surprise. I gave her a tour of the House. The two places she liked the most, Mr. Speaker, were the library and sitting in your chair. Thank you very much for that honour.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

MAY DAY PARADE IN PORT COQUITLAM

M. Farnworth: Everyone knows how wonderful my community of Port Coquitlam is, but there are occasionally rumblings from both sides of the House that when it comes to arts and culture, it may not be in the same league as Vancouver or Victoria.

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: See, hon. Speaker. See my point?

Anyway, the point is that I want to take this opportunity to inform this House that this Saturday, May 8, Port Coquitlam will be the focus of arts and culture in

[ Page 5314 ]

the province of British Columbia as we celebrate our 87th May Day Parade and festival in the city of Port Coquitlam.

The May Day Parade has been a tradition in Port Coquitlam for 87 years. We will have maypole dancing. We will have the crowning of a May queen. We will celebrate our history and our heritage, and at the same time we will also celebrate where we are today. As I said, we will be crowning a May queen, but in keeping with the times, as of about ten years ago, we also now have a May ambassador. It's an opportunity, as I said, to celebrate our history and where we are now, but also to celebrate the young people in our community and celebrate our future.

May Day is a tradition around which our whole community gathers. We will have the May Day Parade, which goes down under Shaughnessy Street through the downtown — 5,000 to 6,000 people there. There was a time in our community when we would close off the Lougheed Highway, and traffic would stop for two hours as the parade would go across. Unfortunately, we are not able to do that. We haven't been able to do that since about 1972.

The one thing that is always the same — it is a time for families. It is a time for kids, it's a time for fun, and it's when we're going to celebrate our community. I ask everyone to come to Port Coquitlam on May 8 to celebrate May Day.

GIRL GUIDES OF CANADA

L. Reid: It gives me great pleasure today to rise and honour 100 years of guiding in Canada. Each province in Canada will be celebrating on May 15, 2010, as part of a national rally.

Historically, many of you will know that Lord Baden-Powell was leading the scouting movement in the United Kingdom and was holding a rally. Imagine. Of all things, young women came and said: "We're coming in." So he put his sister Agnes and his wife to work to begin the guiding movement across the land. That was basically a hundred years ago — the year before, in 1909.

The very next year it came to Canada and thus began a lifetime commitment to building leadership across the globe. The movement reached Canada in 1910, and every province had a unit by 1912. Many of Canada's most forward-thinking women gathered together to create the Canadian council of guiding. It was incorporated by

an act of parliament in the year 1917. The first national camp was held in Victoria in 1927.

Since 1910 Girl Guides have blazed a trail of opportunities for girls and women to help them discover and develop new interests and life skills. Whether it was Agnes Baden-Powell teaching girls to bandage wounds during World War I or girls today working on anti-bullying challenges, guiding continually changes with the times.

B.C. Girl Guides are planning a gigantic camp-over at the Pacific Coliseum on May 15 to celebrate the 100th anniversary of guiding in Canada. Imagine celebrating this milestone with thousands of other members of guiding. Some 8,000 adult and girl members are expected, and more are welcome. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to celebrate the rich history of guiding in Canada.

As a small child, I was a Brownie with the 126th Vancouver Brownie pack. I went on to be a Guide and a Ranger, and then I was the Brown Owl of the 126th Vancouver Brownies. It still makes me smile to this day when 35-year-old women leap to their feet and say: "Good afternoon, Brown Owl."

The organization continues to grow — amazing leaders across the land. I would ask the House to join me in celebrating 100 years.

[1345]

MAYWELL WICKHEIM

J. Horgan: It gives me great pleasure to rise today in this House and speak of one of Sooke's finest residents, Maywell Wickheim, who has been active in countless organizations up and down Vancouver Island and has spent most of his life contributing to the welfare of others and to his community. He has been nominated for the Order of B.C. and, in my opinion, is a most deserving recipient of that award.

Born in 1925, Maywell was the oldest of six children born to a Norwegian homesteading family with a family income of about $34 in the 1930s. Maywell has memories of milking cows, knitting socks and repairing his own leather boots, all before the age of ten. Though he only completed 5½ years of school, Maywell is a voracious reader, and he takes great pleasure in reading such things as the World Book of Knowledge and the Encyclopaedia Britannica.

He spent his working life in the woods, as a foreman on construction sites and eventually as the owner of a Sooke shipyard serving the growing fishing fleet and the tugboats along the coast of the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Accustomed to hundred-hour workweeks in his youth, he's cut back to about 40 hours a week now that he's in his eighth decade. A faller, a farmer, a foreman, a shipbuilder, a machinist, a scuba diver — there's not much that Maywell has not done.

In the back country his kinship with the plants and animals of the Sooke Hills is legendary, but his passion is doing community work. An experienced outdoorsman, Maywell is affectionately called the Big Tree Guy as he searches the Island for the biggest and oldest trees he can find.

He helped establish the San Juan Ridge hiking trail and installed extensive boardwalk systems throughout the Sooke Hills. He leads search and rescue operations

[ Page 5315 ]

in his 85th year, and he also conducts many guiding tours up the rivers of the Sooke Hills and into the ocean of the Strait of Juan de Fuca.

He has a deep connection with the T'Sou-ke Nation and has worked with them building canoes and paddles and participating in many tribal journeys. He's active at the Sooke Fine Arts Show, the regional museum, the Sooke fire department and the Sooke Cooperative Association of Service Agencies. He's been happily married to Betty for 60 years. Maywell lives by the creed "Give what you can, and only take what you need."

mining industry

J. Rustad: Everybody wants to create a green economy that will drive investments and jobs and protect our environment. But whether you're talking about electricity, green cars or everything else, there's one component whose importance is often forgotten. Without minerals, there would be no electric cars, running water, lights or computers, and quite frankly, we would not recognize society today.

In light of this, we should reflect on the fact that May 9 through 15 is Mining Week in B.C. It's a great opportunity for everybody to talk about mining and to support our industry. Mining is a growing industry, and despite the economic challenges during 2009, B.C. saw the sixth-highest total for exploration spending at $154 million. We all should celebrate this and look for opportunities to support the industry with policies like the flow-through share tax credit extension that makes it easier to raise capital, and the HST, which will reduce approximately $55 million in costs per year.

Some 28,000 people earn an average of $112,800 a year and are directly employed in this industry. In my riding Endako Mines has been operating for 45 years. The people in Fraser Lake know the value and quality of life this mine has brought to them.

In addition, Endako is currently going through a $500 million expansion. Huckleberry Mines has brought stability and diversity to Houston for almost 20 years. In the future the Mount Milligan project, TTM's Chu property, Pacific Booker's gold project and others could create more than 5,000 direct and indirect jobs.

Whether it's coal, base or precious metals, mining has helped to build every corner of this province and touched every life. I ask everyone in this House and across the province to join me in celebrating Mining Week and to thank the industry for the benefits it has brought to us.

faith in action initiative

S. Simpson: On April 28, Faith in Action, a multi-denominational group, gathered on the steps of the Legislature to present Begging for Justice, where reverends, pastors and rabbis spoke about our collective responsibility to our most vulnerable citizens. They spoke of the need for housing, increased income, dignity and respect.

They offered up a begging bowl, and person after person who were gathered on the steps wrote down their own begs and put them in the bowl — 207 in total. Calling on all of us in this place to respond, they spoke of the minimum wage, affordable housing, poverty reduction, the disabled, seniors, children, our health care and education systems.

[1350]

In all cases they asked the 85 of us sitting in this place to come together to make the lives of the most vulnerable citizens in society better, to step up and reach out to those in British Columbia who most need our help.

I was honoured and humbled to have accepted the begging bowl on April 28. The challenge that Faith in Action has placed before us is an important and daunting one. It is a challenge that deserves all of our attention, and it is a challenge that can best be met by setting our partisanship aside. I would be happy, certainly, to make the begs available for any member who wants to look at them.

The faith leaders called on all of us — not as Liberals, New Democrats or independents but as British Columbia's leaders — to make the challenges facing our most vulnerable a priority. They called on us to work together to improve the lives of the men and women, children and seniors, the disabled, and those suffering from addictions and mental health issues.

Every day in this place we open our deliberations with a member reading a prayer. Most often it calls for us to have the strength, wisdom and compassion to do what is best for the people of our province. On April 28 those on the steps of the Legislature made that same ask in their prayers and comments.

There are many challenges facing us today in British Columbia. There are priorities to be set. Let us make the commitment that we will all heed the prayers and aspirations of the faith leaders who visited us in April as we make those choices.

CHILD AND YOUTH MENTAL HEALTH

N. Letnick: Today my colleagues in the House have joined me in wearing these green ribbons to help bring awareness to child and youth mental health.

Mental illness surpasses all other child health problems in terms of the number of children affected and degree of impairment. One in seven children and youth, or an estimated 140,000 in British Columbia alone, experiences mental disorders serious enough to cause significant distress and impair their functioning at home, at school, with peers and in the community.

Tomorrow, May 7, is Child and Youth Mental Health Day in British Columbia, a time to not only raise awareness of

[ Page 5316 ]

this very serious and far-reaching issue but also recognize the vital importance of supporting children, youth and families who need assistance with mental health challenges.

It is essential to the health and wellness of our youngest citizens that we speak openly about this issue and that we work together to create an environment that is supportive, open and compassionate where children, youth and their families are comfortable asking for help and have earlier access to appropriate mental health supports and services. This is important in everyday conversation and in settings such in schools, where programs like Friends for Life help give children and parents the tools they need to help them talk about and manage their emotions throughout their lives.

We all recognize the importance of mental health promotion, prevention and early intervention as an investment in our future. As a province we have taken a leadership role by establishing the first child and youth mental health plan of its kind in Canada. Today almost 20,000 children and youth receive mental health services each year in British Columbia.

We all have a role to play, and I ask all British Columbians to recognize Child and Youth Mental Health Day and the importance of supporting those with mental health challenges in their families, their schools, their neighbourhoods and their communities.

Introductions by Members

D. McRae: I see that during the two-minute statements, the grade 5 classes from Huband Park Elementary in the Comox Valley have come to join us today. I would like the members to make them feel welcome, please.

Oral Questions

SPECIAL PROSECUTOR in investigation

of FORMER SOLICITOR GENERAL

L. Krog: Members of that side of the House would have us believe that no one in the B.C. Liberal Party — no one — knew that a law firm that had donated literally tens of thousands of dollars to the B.C. Liberal Party was also charged with investigating a B.C. Liberal dirty tricks scandal. It turns out that the same law firm also did millions of dollars of work for the former Solicitor General's ministry.

The question is very simple. How is it that no one on that side of the House noticed or bothered to report this?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member will know or should know that the appointment of the special prosecutor took place in January of this year — the special prosecutor to which he has referred in his question. The fact of that appointment did not become known to the government or to myself until the first week of April. In fact, I believe that the member became aware of it at approximately the same time that I did.

[1355]

To suggest, as I think the member is, that I or others in government had knowledge of that fact, of what the member is suggesting, is simply incorrect.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: There is a responsibility in government….

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Minister.

L. Krog: We know that Harper Grey, since 2001, has done more than $7 million worth of work with ICBC. ICBC reports to the Solicitor General.

Now, I know the B.C. Liberals wanted to pretend that they've been victimized by this process. But will the Deputy Premier admit that the real victims here are British Columbians, who have been victimized by B.C. Liberal sleaze and incompetence?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, I'm saddened by the question and the nature by which the member brings it to this House. I don't know this for a fact, but I suspect that the law firm the member has referred to performed work for the Insurance Corporation in the past when other parties, even his own, were….

I don't have those facts at my disposal, but to suggest, as he has, that there is collusion or impropriety here…. What there was — and I will say this again for the benefit of the House — was a failure of the process by which special prosecutors are appointed and carry out their work. That's why we're prepared to look at some changes.

Maybe in light of what we have discovered here, maybe in light of the fact that there are fundamental rights that people have to participate in the democratic process, we are left with a situation where we need to look beyond the jurisdiction of British Columbia to involve people in this process. If that's necessary, then the government is prepared to do that.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a further supplemental.

L. Krog: Everybody gets it. The process to hire the special prosecutor is independent, and once hired, that is reported to the Deputy Attorney General. But the fact is that this is no licence to keep quiet when political friends are hired to investigate the B.C. Liberal sleaze.

Again to the Deputy Premier. Somebody at some point became aware of this. Somebody had a duty to speak up. It was public knowledge. It's been public knowledge since the first part of April. Can the Deputy Premier explain to

[ Page 5317 ]

this House and explain to British Columbians why there appears to be a don't-ask, don't-tell policy on that side?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member knows the answer to the first part of his question, because I gave it to him yesterday. I gave it to the entire House. I told this House precisely when we became aware of the situation, as revealed by the special prosecutor. If the member doesn't believe me, then he should say that. But I provided this House yesterday with the facts as they relate to how that information became known to the government.

I've also indicated the government's willingness to examine the changes that may have to be made, and we're prepared to do that. But the facts upon which this issue arose were publicly available to the opposition. The donor list is public. So to suggest that there was some conspiracy of silence is absurd in the extreme. The member would have known at the same time that the appointment became public early in April.

S. Simpson: The Attorney General suggests with his last answer that the responsibility rests with everybody else to have identified the $50,000 plus that Harper Grey donated to his party. The responsibility lies with the government. It lies with the party that is being implicated in some ways in this question about the matter of this brochure.

[1400]

The question for the Attorney General is: how come he didn't see fit to know about these donations, and how come he didn't see fit to ensure that the criminal justice branch was aware of this connection between Harper Grey and his party?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member's suggestion, as I understand it, is that the Attorney General should be made aware in all circumstances when a special prosecutor has been appointed, should conduct an individual and specific and separate vetting process. The member's suggestion is that the office of the Attorney General should become directly involved in the process by which special prosecutors are appointed.

That is not what Mr. Owen had in mind when he recommended this process in the first place. It's interesting to hear, though, the extent to which this member and his party are advocating direct political involvement in the appointment of a special prosecutor.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: What this side is suggesting is that some transparency and accountability on the part of the government would be a benefit. The Attorney General told us earlier in this question period that he became aware….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

S. Simpson: The Attorney General told us earlier that he became aware of the special prosecutor in early April. That's when he became aware.

The Attorney General would probably know better than this side who's giving money to his party, or certainly, folks in his party would. So the question is: when the Attorney General became aware of the appointment — $50,000 plus of donations from that lawyer's firm, the special prosecutor's firm — why did the Attorney General or somebody on that side not raise that flag with the criminal justice branch?

Hon. M. de Jong: I hope the member from Hastings will forgive me. I've learned to take some of what or much of what he says in this chamber with a grain of salt because it seems to undergo a magical metamorphosis when he walks through the doors over to the right, as it did yesterday.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. The Attorney has the floor, please.

Hon. M. de Jong: If the member took the time or cared to consult the Crown Counsel Act, he would know that there are strict limitations on the contact that the Attorney General has and the involvement that the Attorney General has in the special prosecutor process. Now, it may be that in the aftermath of what has taken place, that needs to change. I dare say the change being advocated by this member is not one that I am favourably disposed to accept.

INVESTIGATION of election campaign

For fORMER SOLICITOR GENERAL

M. Farnworth: The bottom line is: we've had a tainted election, and we've had a tainted investigation, which is clearly going to be very expensive. So my question to the Attorney General is: will he assure this House that not one penny of taxpayers' money will go to pay for this botched investigation?

[1405]

Hon. M. de Jong: I actually share the frustration about what took place with respect to the work of this special prosecutor. I'm not in a position to provide the assurance that the member is seeking, very simply because of the independence by which this process is governed.

But I can say again, for the benefit of all members of the House, that examining the means by which special prosecutors are appointed, examining the means by which the pool of qualified candidates is developed and

[ Page 5318 ]

examining the jurisdiction from which that pool is derived are all very much questions that the government and I are prepared to consider.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: I find it appalling that members on that side, including the Minister of Health, somehow think that it's a laughing matter that we've had a special prosecutor that has resigned, resulting in a huge amount of expense in an investigation, and that the likelihood is that we're going to have to have a new special prosecutor to go back and look at everything all over again. It's going to cost a lot of money.

I would have thought that it would have been entirely appropriate to ask the question. Given the fact that the special prosecutor resigned because of the conflict, that a whole bunch of money has been wasted and that we're going to have to spend it all over again, it would be in the government's interest and the taxpayers' interests to ensure that we do everything possible so that not one penny of taxpayers' money is wasted on that botched investigation.

Hon. M. de Jong: If I have to say it again, I will. I believe that the public did not receive the service to which they are entitled by virtue of this process in this instance. We're prepared to examine — and I've listed a number of ways that we are prepared to examine — changes that might be brought about to ensure that the public does and can have the measure of confidence that….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: The public can and needs to have the measure of confidence, required confidence, in a very specific process and a very unique process, and that is: situations in which it is deemed necessary to reach outside of the professional core of prosecutors that work within the Attorney General's ministry. That, in and of itself, is unique. Developing a process by which we can, with confidence, secure the services of people free and clear of any conflict or perceived conflict is very much a priority.

K. Corrigan: Well, the minister has just said it. These are services that were not rendered, and what we're asking is: do we have a commitment from this government that the taxpayers of this province will not have to pay for some services that were never rendered?

Hon. M. de Jong: I take it from her question that the member, in the intervening 24 hours, has not taken the opportunity to consult the Crown Counsel Act.

If she had, she would know that the agreement by which the services are retained in the instance of a special prosecutor, in this case and every other — and you know there are members on the opposition side who have found themselves involved in this exercise as well — is one that exists and occurs exclusively between the head of the criminal justice branch legislatively, statutorily, requiring that individual and the person occupying that post not only to engage the special prosecutor but only inform the deputy and/or the Attorney General when he or she deems it appropriate to do so.

That is the extent of the independence that guards this process, and that may be politically inconvenient for the member to acknowledge, but it is a fact. It is the law right now, and we will abide by that law.

[1410]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: Yes, I have read the legislation in the entirety.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

K. Corrigan: The truth is that what the minister is conveniently forgetting is that this all started and all ties back to tainted ties with the Liberal Party. My question again to the minister: will the minister ensure that because these services have not been properly rendered, the taxpayers of B.C. will not have to pay this bill?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm interested to hear more about the member's allegation around tainted ties. Since she has come to the end of her supplementary, she may want to step outside and share that information free and clear of the kind of privilege that protects people here.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just take your seat, Attorney.

Continue, Attorney.

Hon. M. de Jong: Notwithstanding that comment, it's interesting that the process the member and her colleagues seem to be advocating is that the Attorney General seize control of remunerating those that are retained to provide special prosecutor service. Can you imagine the howls of outrage that would derive from the opposition benches if it were discovered at some point

[ Page 5319 ]

that the Attorney General was controlling the purse strings associated with the payment of special prosecutors, Mr. Speaker?

REAPPOINTMENT OF SOLICITOR GENERAL

N. Macdonald: What the people of British Columbia are advocating is an election that's untainted and an investigation process that's untainted. That's what we're after here.

Let's go to what the minister talked about yesterday. At 4:30 p.m. on Tuesday the Ministry of Attorney General learned that the special prosecutor appointed to look into the dirty tricks campaign had resigned. That took place at 4:30. Two hours later the Attorney General spoke with the Premier, and the Premier decided to let the swearing in of the now former Solicitor General go ahead — clearly, a case of very poor judgment.

The question I have for the Attorney General is: did he tell the Premier to not go ahead with the swearing in?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, the member asks a similar question that was asked yesterday, and I will provide the same answer. In providing the chronology of events, I made it clear to the member…. Again, if he doesn't believe me — I'm a big boy — tell me he doesn't believe me. If he thinks I'm misleading the House, then stand here and suggest that I'm misleading the House, because I….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: As I said to the member and his colleagues yesterday, the instrument by which the reinstatement of the then Solicitor General, the member from Fraserview, had already taken place.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: We ask again today because the answer yesterday and today is ridiculous. The premise that you cannot stop a swearing in is absolutely ridiculous. It is a tainted investigation of a tainted election. It is obviously untenable for the Solicitor General to continue. It must have been obvious to the Attorney General when he spoke to the Premier. The question is: did he advise the Premier to go against and not swear in the Solicitor General?

It's a simple question. What advice did you give to the Premier?

[1415]

Hon. M. de Jong: The member may choose to ignore the chronology of events that I provided to him last time.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Attorney.

Hon. M. de Jong: The member may choose to ignore the speed with which events descended upon us. The member may choose to ignore the fact that one of the key individuals involved in the reappointment process was nine time zones away representing the province. But those were all factors that played into the chronology of events.

Mr. Speaker, it's interesting that the member, by virtue of their question, chooses to ignore the fact that the member from Fraserview — having taken what I would suggest to the House was a reasonable period of time to consider the events that had taken place — came back the very next day and tendered his resignation and stepped aside from his post.

J. Kwan: What I'm hearing from the Attorney General is that the sorry excuse he's putting forward is that the Premier is tired, and so he made the wrong decision. Let me just get this straight. The people of Vancouver-Fraserview are cheated of a fair election.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Member.

J. Kwan: The people of Vancouver-Fraserview are cheated of a fair election. In return, British Columbians get a tainted prosecution investigation. For that effort, British Columbians are going to be stuck with the bill. The Attorney General learned of the resignation of the special prosecutor for the case four hours in advance of the swearing-in ceremony.

My question is this: did the Attorney General at any point in time tell the Premier that it was simply wrong to push ahead with the reappointment?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member's facts are wrong. Her chronology is wrong, and quite frankly, the speed with which she chooses to ignore an ongoing judicial process and draw her own conclusions and render her own verdict is disappointing and inappropriate for a member of this assembly.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: The Attorney General knew about the tainted prosecution process at 4:30. He spoke to the Premier at 6:30, two hours in advance of the actual swearing-in ceremony. So don't tell me, Mr. Speaker, that the Attorney General could not stop the OIC. Did he even try to stop the OIC and tell the Premier that it is simply

[ Page 5320 ]

wrong to go through with the reappointment and call on the Premier to cancel the swearing-in ceremony?

Hon. M. de Jong: Again, the member chooses to ignore one very important fact. The legal instrument by which the reappointment had taken place had been signed, had been executed, and that was done….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Attorney.

Hon. M. de Jong: It's interesting that the members, in circumstances where an individual, a member of this House, has been confronted by a set of circumstances, has resigned…. There has been a special prosecutor conducting an investigation.

[1420]

A report has been tabled, that report purporting to clear the individual of any wrongdoing. Then the presentation of a set of facts that cause all of us great concern. He has taken the appropriate step of stepping aside again to ensure that for the office of Solicitor General, the highest standards are upheld for that office.

J. Horgan: My question is to the Attorney General. I'm curious. If a corridor order was used, an order-in-council signed after business hours, to appoint the Solicitor General, surely to goodness, two members is all I imagine you need from executive council to rescind that order. How long does it take for two members of cabinet to come together and rescind an order? I'd say about two minutes.

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, I appreciate that armed with the weapon of hindsight, the member has charted out the ideal means by which to respond to circumstances that were by any description unique, very different.

What they choose to ignore, of course, is the fact that having had a very reasonable opportunity to consider in its entirety the significance of the developments that took place almost contemporaneous to the reinstatement, the member for Vancouver-Fraserview made the right decision and stepped aside from his post. That was the right thing to do, and he did it without hesitation.

D. Black: The Attorney General spoke to the Premier at 6:30. The Solicitor General was not sworn in until several hours later. It is ridiculous for anyone to expect the people of British Columbia or members of this side of the House to think that the Premier could not stop the swearing in of a new Solicitor General with several hours to spare.

We have asked repeatedly: what advice did the Attorney General give to the Premier, and why did the Premier not stop the swearing in of the Solicitor General?

Hon. M. de Jong: I told members yesterday that we found ourselves in a position where we were assessing the significance of what had taken place, that we found ourselves….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: The members ask the questions and then don't want to hear the answers, Mr. Speaker. I'm sorry about that, but I'll try to give the answers as best I can.

We found ourselves in an extraordinarily unusual situation where at the same time a reinstatement was taking place, something very unusual landed in everyone's lap. In fact, it landed in our lap around about the same time it landed in the lap of the opposition, and the member for Nanaimo, in particular.

The government made decisions. The member for Vancouver-Fraserview made decisions. And I will say this: in circumstances that were difficult, that were unusual, that required a time to consider appropriately, the member for Fraserview made the appropriate decision and put the status of the office of Solicitor General ahead of his own interests, notwithstanding his desire to serve the people of British Columbia.

[End of question period.]

S. Fraser: I seek leave to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

S. Fraser: I have a petition from over 200 Port Alberni residents asking the government to halt the HST.

[1425]

Reports from Committees

S. Cadieux: I have the honour to present the report of the Special Committee to Appoint an Information and Privacy Commissioner.

I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

S. Cadieux: I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

S. Cadieux: I move that the report be adopted.

[ Page 5321 ]

This report constitutes the committee's unanimous recommendation for the appointment of the third Information and Privacy Commissioner of British Columbia. The committee is very pleased to recommend Ms. Elizabeth Denham to the House.

Ms. Denham was born and raised in British Columbia and has vast experience at senior levels with information and privacy matters.

Motion approved.

S. Cadieux: I ask leave of the House to permit the moving of a motion requesting the Lieutenant-Governor to appoint Ms. Elizabeth Denham Information and Privacy Commissioner for the province of British Columbia.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Petitions

J. Kwan: I rise to table a petition. I have a big stack of petitions here from the people of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, the Mount Pleasant parent advisory council, calling on the provincial government to fully fund the funding shortfall that the Vancouver school district faces.

Reports from Committees

N. Letnick: I have the honour to present the report of the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

I move that the report be read and received.

Motion approved.

Law Clerk:

May 6, 2010

Mr. Speaker:

Your Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills begs leave to report as follows: (1) that the

preamble to Bill Pr401 intituled Horizons Unbound Rehabilitation and Training Society (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2010, has been proved, and the committee recommends to the House that the bill proceed to second reading; (2) that the

preamble to Bill Pr402 intituled Vancouver Foundation Amendment Act, 2010, has been proved, and the committee recommends to the House that the bill proceed to second reading.

All of which is respectfully submitted,

Norm Letnick, Chairman.

N. Letnick: I ask leave of the House to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

N. Letnick: I move that the report be adopted.

Motion approved.

Bill Pr401 and Bill Pr402 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motions Without Notice

APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE

TO APPOINT A CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER

Hon. M. de Jong: With leave, I move:

[That a Special Committee be appointed to select and unanimously recommend to the Legislative Assembly, the appointment of a Chief Electoral Officer for the Province of British Columbia, pursuant to

section 4 of the Election Act , and that the Special Committee so appointed shall have the powers of a Select Standing Committee and is also empowered:

(

a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

(

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

(

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

(

d) to retain such personnel as required to assist the Committee;

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.

The said Special Committee is to be composed of Messrs. van Dongen (Convener) and Lake, Ms. Cadieux, Mr. Ralston and Ms. Hammell.]

I have provided a copy of the motion which sets out through subparagraphs (

a) to (

d) the empowerments and that the committee shall report to the House as soon as possible or, following any adjournment or at the next following session as the case may be, to deposit the original of its report with the Clerk.

With leave, I so move.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

D. Routley: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

[1430]

Introductions by Members

D. Routley: I'd like the House to help me welcome my lovely partner, Leanne Finlayson, who joined us today

[ Page 5322 ]

for the MLA motorcycle ride sponsored by the B.C. Coalition of Motorcyclists. Can the House please help me make Leanne welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Education — and, in this chamber, continued committee stage debate on Bill 8.

Committee of the Whole House

BIll 8 — ENERGY, MINES AND

PETROLEUM RESOURCES STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2010

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 8; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:33 p.m.

section 56 (continued) .

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Just before we begin our discussion at committee stage on Bill 8, I would like to introduce the staff I have with me. Joining me is Barbara Thomson, who is the director of marketing and aboriginal and community relations, as well as Mike Lambert, who is the executive director of the oil and gas division.

J. Horgan: Yesterday we were debating

section 56, division 7 clauses. This is the last section. Well, we've got three more divisions before we get to the end, but I don't expect we'll be more than another 15 or 20 minutes, provided the minister is as quick off the mark with his able staff as he was yesterday.

We're into the costs section. Rather than going through clauses 168, 169 and 170, perhaps the minister could address the entire division 7 and lay out for the committee what the intention of these three clauses is and what the cost impacts will be.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: This is certainly one of those provisions again — very good in the benefit to the landowner. This allows the board to award full costs for the landowner that they incur. Where previously it was awarded by the courts, this will now allow for full cost reimbursement to the landowner for the costs they incur.

[1435]

J. Horgan: Could the minister explain the previous scenario so that we better understand what the future looks like? You said: "Previously, this; in the future, that." Can you tell me what the previous was?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Previously what would take place is that a landowner would be dealing with mediation-arbitration. They would incur costs, and the reimbursement of those costs was only partial costs as determined by the courts.

What this

section does — and the two further that we've talked about…. It will allow for the actual costs, which will include actual reasonable legal fees and disbursements, as it's laid out in 168 as you read through that. So a positive step for the landowner. Rather than receiving partial costs as would be determined by a court, the board now has the ability to actually award full costs back to the landowner.

J. Horgan: In clause 168 it says: "(

d) an amount on account of the reasonable time spent by a party in preparing for and attending a board proceeding." Who determines what the reasonable time is and what the value of that time is?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The board ultimately makes that determination.

J. Horgan: What will guide the board in coming to those decisions? Will that be set in regulation? Will it be best practices from other jurisdictions?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: It would be determined based on evidence supplied by the party.

J. Horgan: I get that. You're going to have to show your taxi receipt or…. I understand that. But in terms of time spent, that's the nebulous area. Who's determining the value of time? To me, it might be worth more than to someone younger than me, and so on.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Ultimately, the board makes that determination based on reasonableness. So the landowner, for instance, would supply everything, and if it is reasonable based on the determination of the board, they would award those costs.

J. Horgan: Yes, and the Chair will agree. Beyond the member for Peace River South, there's no one more reasonable than the member for Juan de Fuca, so it's difficult….

Interjections.

J. Horgan: Oh, I'm getting a…. Division, says the member for Shuswap. But I hear no bells, so I'll carry on.

The Chair: Thank you for your help, Members.

J. Horgan: Yeah. Again, I don't dispute that the board will set that. But if you're an aging farmer who's had to

[ Page 5323 ]

come into town to participate, to make the case, your reasonable costs may be different from someone who lives around the corner.

I know that this

section is designed to give latitude to the board, but I think, just in the interest of certainty, we should have some parameters on how much you value someone's time based on…. Is it on their vocation? Is it on their age? Is it on their distance from the location of the meeting?

[1440]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Before I formally answer, the aging farmers in my area are very strong and diligent hard workers, and I think are certainly worth their weight in gold, to be honest with you.

But the way it would work is this. Somebody that was involved in this process would file what their determination was, as the landowner. They would file if they had to leave work, for example, what their wage rates were — all of that. The board would then take that into the full consideration for full costs.

Certainly, the reasonableness comes in, but the men and women at the board are professionals. The people that will submit that evidence — I can tell you I can speak for farmers probably right across this country — are a pretty honest lot. They will submit what they think is due and right.

J. Horgan: Just before I move on, the minister will be aware that if someone reviews Hansard to determine intent here, I'm sure the minister didn't want to suggest that heavier farmers would be worth more than lighter farmers in terms of weight in gold. With that, I'll move past…. Unless the minister wants to have that on the record that the heavier the farmer, the more costs will be returned. I'll give you a chance to slide back on that one in a minute.

Moving to division 8, "Provisions Relating to Board Orders," that would be clauses 171 through 177. Again, I just lump those together within this division in the interests of allowing staff to provide the minister with some sense of how these clauses will affect orders relating to the board.

[1445]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: There are three differences in these sections, and I will go through them — sections 175, 176 and

Section 175 allows the landowner to file the board order with the Supreme Court of British Columbia. If they haven't received the money that is owed to them as a result of that, then the debt collection process is enabled. That was

section

Section 176. They can go back to the board, and the board can then suspend the right of entry for the company until the money is paid.

Section 177 is simply saying that they have to comply with the board's order. Those are the three changes in the sections he's raised here.

J. Horgan: I know the minister and I are both guilty now. It's clause, not section.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: We're so reasonable, Member for Shuswap, that we'll just fly right by that.

Within clause 176, though, the failure to pay in

section 1(a), (b), (

c) and (d)…. Again, prior to the introduction of these amendments, what scenario would have existed should a permit holder fail to meet their compensation obligations to the surface rights holder? I'm assuming, as I read this, that this is an improvement, but maybe you could burrow down and focus in on what the improvements are so that the record reflects that.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The significant difference here and the significant benefit put forward is it now allows the board to suspend the right of entry, which is a significant clause.

I just want to also read 177. Something that is extremely important, I know, to the member who has asked the question and to the people I represent in the northeast is compliance with orders. In an extreme situation, this would allow the commission to refuse to issue a permit to a company with a poor track record in complying with requirements related to surface access on private land — again, something the landowners have asked for, for some time. Very happy to be able to deliver it here.

J. Horgan: Moving to division 9, which will be clauses 178 through 180, "Surface Lease Information." Submission of surface lease information and administrative penalty are identified, and suspension of right of entry. Again, I assume these are clauses that were recommended by NEEMAC, supported by the community. Or do these come fully borne through the Oil and Gas Commission?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: These were developed, correctly, with NEEMAC as well as ministry staff.

J. Horgan: You'll remember the sadness of my amendment not passing yesterday, hon. Chair. It rocked me for the rest of the day. But it was one of the issues that had been brought forward through NEEMAC, which was rejected in the creation of this bill.

Is the minister aware of any other suggestions that would have fulfilled the desire of surface rights holders through the NEEMAC process and the Oil and Gas Commission that are not contained here? Is there anything he knows of that was left off the table?

[1450]

[ Page 5324 ]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I'm not aware of any that the member is asking about. The surface leases must now be filed with the board. Previously the board could not release that information to the public. They will now be allowed to under these terms. Of course, confidentiality and all of that would have to be maintained through FOI.

J. Horgan: The last clause of

section 56 is "Regulations," clause 181. As we've gone through the bill amending the Oil and Gas Activities Act and the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, we've had numerous sections that have spoken to Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council's ability to make regulation.

I just wonder…. Here we are, very close — the penultimate page. This is yet another opportunity to further clarify the power of cabinet. Is there a reason for that, or is it just a convenient place to put down one more opportunity to assert the supreme power of cabinet?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: This is to continue and add new regulation authority to cabinet, as he's pointed out. This is a drafting requirement because they would not go back to

section 133, as you indicated, where there were previous powers. They have to follow what takes place the way it is written as a drafting requirement.

Sections 56 to 58 inclusive approved.

section 59.

J. Horgan: This is the last

section of the act. This is the commencement, which will be

section 59, which will become the act. We have "the provisions of this Act referred to in column 1 of the following table come into force" at certain times.

[1455]

I just want to clarify when there's an anticipated coming into force. As the member knows from our previous debate, the previous bill was passed by closure with no opportunity to do the due diligence that the minister and his able staff and I have been able to do on this bill. It was denied this Legislature and denied the people of B.C.

As we are now anticipating a commencement and a coming into force, I'm wondering if the minister could specify, beyond the date of royal assent, when we can see sections 1 through 14, sections 49 through 56, which is by regulation of the L-G-in-C, or the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council…. Does the minister have a ballpark figure on when the community can expect these sections to come into force?

The Chair: Hon. Member, your question refers to

section

Section 59 approved.

section 60.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I believe that earlier we had talked about this, and I said it would be my hope that we would ensure that this was implemented in 2010 for sure. There's transition. There's training. There are regulations. I know the member is aware of how this works.

I'm an optimist, and I believe we're going to be able to do this by the fall of this year. This is a very important bill. I think the member would agree. I think it really transitions a lot of the things the landowners in the Peace have talked about for a number of years to help bring back the balance that certainly, it was felt, wasn't there.

I know our staff are going to do everything they can to bring this, but as the member knows, I can't give him a specific date as the transition and training takes place — it is my hope — as quickly as possible. I'm going to follow through on that, and the member can certainly speak to me at any point to find out where we're at.

J. Horgan: I just want to take the opportunity to thank Ms. Thomson and Mr. Lambert for their patience, and the ministry staff who worked so hard on this, and also the citizens in the minister's region who have waited patiently for these changes to improve their situation with respect to what has become a dominant industry in the region — in fact, in the province.

Always we need to be mindful, as the minister has articulated — and certainly we on this side of the House agree — that landowners should have protection in law. I believe we've taken some fairly positive steps in the right direction with this legislation.

Section 60 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I would move 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

Bill 8 — energy, mines and

petroleum resources statutes

amendment act, 2010

Bill 8, Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources Statutes Amendment Act, 2010, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

[ Page 5325 ]

Hon. G. Abbott: I call continuing committee stage debate on Bill 5, the Zero Net Deforestation Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BIll 5 — Zero Net Deforestation Act

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 5; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 3:02 p.m.

section 4 (continued) .

N. Macdonald: The last part of the act, then, is this

section 4, which goes through and basically gives a whole list of powers to the cabinet to make decisions in terms of defining exactly how this is going to work. Now, we did raise the concern about that, and the minister's explanation is that as the market for carbon credits and that starts to emerge, there's a need for flexibility. Nevertheless, the ability to be diligent and to fully understand what's going on here is obviously tempered by when that takes place.

I guess, to come back to where we left off, just a question. The minister seemed to indicate that they really don't have a clear idea on the methodology. I would just ask: given that this has been in progress for about two years, why is there not a more complete description of the methodology that the minister is going to use to make this work?

Hon. P. Bell: I didn't, I guess, mean to suggest there hadn't been lots of work done on this in terms of the types of incentives that could be brought to bear. In fact, there are examples of work that has gone on historically. An example of that would be Tree Canada, who currently have the opportunity to issue tax receipts. Donations are limited to 75 percent of income for the year, but unused amounts can be carried forward. Individuals get a tax credit for $40 for the first $200 in donations and 43.7 percent of donations in excess of $200. That would be an example of something that has been ongoing but used in different ways.

The member earlier asked about Pacific Western Brewing in Prince George and whether or not that would be considered part of the objectives around zero net deforestation. While that work is being done in areas that are not currently considered deforested, in the future it could be that Tree Canada or companies like Pacific Western Brewing would like to utilize that opportunity to afforest lands.

[1505]

So while it is a new piece of legislation and really world-leading in terms of the work that we're trying to do here, it's very hard to know what level of incentive will be required to encourage the zero net level of behaviour. We will meter out those incentives in a way to achieve that objective.

That's also why we measure every two years as opposed to every five years — so that we can monitor the level of activity that's going on to determine whether the incentive levels are appropriate given the objective of zero net deforestation.

N. Macdonald: I'm pretty sure this is not how it works, but perhaps I've missed something. If, for instance, a large outlet store is going to set up a parking lot — let's say in Prince George — and remove forested land, there's no obligation for them as a business, by participating in a program, to deal with another area being afforested.

Am I clear on that? There's no thinking that they would participate? Or is the intention that eventually they would be somehow part of finding a new area to afforest?

Hon. P. Bell: The member is correct. There's no obligation on the company that deforests or an individual that deforests to afforest somewhere else. That opportunity is open to that company or individual as well as any other company or individual that wishes to participate in the program.

N. Macdonald: This will, essentially, be publicly funded, then, if it is through tax breaks or through carbon offsets. A main part of it the minister sees as being publicly funded?

Hon. P. Bell: That's hard to know at this point. We kind of went down this path a little bit earlier on in terms of asking what costs would be associated with it. The commitment is to get to a zero net deforestation — so not a positive afforestation or a negative afforestation but a neutral volume of ground planted that has been deforested in the province through non-timber-type activities. We will meter out the level of incentives based on that.

We have a number of examples, as I said — Tree Canada, Pacific Western Brewing: companies where there would be no incremental level of incentive offered. There are already some incentives out there. I do think that, clearly, there will need to be some incentives and probably some education that will need to take place in order to meet the objective.

It would be hard for me to suggest that it would be either strictly or significantly supported by governments. I won't know that until we actually get into the program and see the results.

N. Macdonald: In speaking to the various House Leaders…. The House Leaders, I think, are saying that

[ Page 5326 ]

there's an opportunity for the member to be expansive in his answers, as I think that there will be some coordination issues that will come up. I think that there's still…. I have a number of questions to go forward, but I think there's also a time frame of about 15 to 20 minutes that the two House Leaders are talking about. I know that the member has in estimates and in other places been very to the point in his answers. I just leave that with you as an opportunity.

The next question is…. As I've said before, there's the possibility of the exercise being one where people will want to have insight, and we have canvassed this somewhat before. Does the minister see a role for the Forest Practices Board in terms of looking at what's taking place and providing a degree of accountability?

Hon. P. Bell: I have to say that my colleague the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure suggested that this is the first time that the Minister of Forests and Range has ever been asked to give longer as opposed to shorter answers. I appreciate that opportunity.

[1510]

Interjections.

Hon. P. Bell: Now I'm getting heckled by my own team. Isn't that amazing how that works?

I think there is an opportunity to consider other entities, whether it's the Forest Practices Board…. I also firmly believe in the model of third-party certification that has taken place in this province over the last number of years. I've spoken extensively about the issue of third-party certification. Whether it's CSA, SFI or FSC, all three models certainly are models that have grown.

I think the member earlier on referred to and talked about the notion of carbon credits and how that might evolve, or carbon offsets and how that might evolve. I think that's another good example of an opportunity for a third-party certifier or for an audited, accountable, transparent mechanism by which carbon will be accounted for. Those are examples of ways that the public can feel comfortable that the objective is being met, that we are fulfilling the responsibilities of the act.

There are a number of ways of getting at this, a number of different bodies. I think that will evolve over time. Certainly, it's in the province's best interest, regardless of who is government, to have that solid third-party-certifier support. I do believe that the globe will require that over time, especially with regards to carbon credits.

We talked earlier about the notion of carbon offsets and carbon credits and how that might work. I talked about how there is a wide variety of values associated with carbon credits ranging from what some people call junk credits that are worth a dime or less per tonne to higher-value credits. There are a number of organizations that do that work. The ones that are successful, and we're trying to model the Pacific Carbon Trust after this, are the ones where it is very clear that in fact that incremental carbon is being sequestered and that the work being done is achieving results.

I think this is a very exciting area of public policy, one that will continue to evolve. While the Zero Net Deforestation Act by itself does not drive this agenda, I do think it creates opportunities to move forward.

Coming back and tying my comments specifically to

section 4 of the act, since that's where we are right now, the ability to make regulations in a wide variety of areas is really key to the success of the act over time.

If we are constrained in a very narrow definition of how we measure net zero deforestation — what different sorts of activities can account for afforestation, which lands are available for afforestation — I think it can create challenges over the long term as things change, as the low-carbon economy starts to evolve and develop, and as companies look to ways to move forward on afforestation.

I'd also add that I think there's a significant role for First Nations in this. I spoke yesterday up in Nanaimo at a First Nations economic conference and talked specifically about the opportunities around afforestation. We have 203 First Nations around the province. Another piece of legislation that we'll be talking about and I'm looking forward to working with the member opposite on is with regards to a new form of First Nations tenures. I do hope we have the opportunity to get to that one before the end of session. I hope there's an agreement amongst the House Leaders to get that work done.

I think that one is very interesting and also brings in the possibility of afforestation in these tenures. In fact, as we go forward, it will be very interesting to see what kind of values do come as a result of carbon credits. We could easily get to a point in time in the next few years where there is real value to the process of growing trees, active forms of incremental silviculture that bring values such as carbon credits. It is possible, in my view, where companies and/or First Nations will actively be pursuing area-based tenures in areas where significant deforestation has occurred, and it has an opportunity to get that incremental value.

I think it's important to have a wide variety of regulatory-making authority. I know that if I was in opposition, I'd prefer that it all be in legislation as opposed to regulation. I understand why that would be. But when you're dealing with a brand-new area of public policy like this, something that really hasn't been touched on in other jurisdictions certainly in North America, I think it is appropriate to have a wider range of opportunity around regulatory-making ability.

[1515]

N. Macdonald: The thinking right now is that it would be similar to some of the existing third parties that validate forestry work. It would be something similar to that.

[ Page 5327 ]

I asked about the Forest Practices Board. Is there consideration of the Auditor General in having a role in this, especially if it's dealing with public funds and private entities?

Hon. P. Bell: While it is possible for a ministry or government to request the Auditor General's work to be done in a specific area, it's not one that I'd contemplated. I actually think probably the Forest Practices Board would be better suited to do that type of work. We have a new chair in the Forest Practices Board. Al Gorley was recently reappointed. I had an opportunity to meet with him earlier on this week. I think Al will do a great job on the Forest Practices Board.

We didn't actually canvass this specific area, but it's the type of area that the Forest Practices Board typically does good work in, and I think they would be better suited as an entity. But the Auditor General will do what the Auditor General wants to do, as we all know. I'm sure if he sees fit or she sees fit, depending on who it is into the future, they would feel more than comfortable looking at this particular level of activity.

But at this point, as we move into the first round of measurement, we'll see what third-party certifiers are interested in looking at and see what the Forest Practices Board is looking at, and we'll likely work with one of those organizations.

N. Macdonald: One more question, just about the public bodies. Is there any thinking that they would be incented to participate in this? Is there any thinking of how you could include municipalities or hospital districts or school boards to participate in some program like this?

Hon. P. Bell: The quick answer to that is yes. I know that we're looking to not necessarily get a quick answer right now, so we'll get the slower answer as well. But very much so municipalities, I think, will be ideally suited to take advantage of this opportunity, particularly around brownfield sites, old industrial sites. I think there's a tremendous opportunity for them to play an active role. But the stakeholder groups that we are looking to engage with in the short term are certainly all the universities — UBC, UNBC, Royal Roads, UVic and some of the specialty institutions.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Lands will be working with utilities, because there's a huge opportunity in dealing with utilities around this afforestation in some of the large corridors that we have. The B.C. Institute of Agrologists; groups like the B.C. Cattlemen; the B.C. Ag Council; the Private Managed Forest Land folks, another key group that I think could be utilized here; clearly, through UBCM, local government, but all sorts of government organizations; the different beetle action coalitions.

The Urban Development Institute would be another one that we would want to be talking to, the Real Estate Foundation of B.C., the B.C. Road Builders, the Association of B.C. Land Surveyors, the Planning Institute of British Columbia. The Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists would clearly be another opportunity with regards to minesites and reclamation of minesites.

I see my colleague the Minister of State for Mining has announced again that mining is leading the way in B.C.'s economic recovery. We'll have a glass of wine and talk about that a little later on this evening. I'd argue that with lumber prices where they are, we're making some significant headway these days as well.

Obviously, the Council of Forest Industries, Coast Forest Products Association, and the Interior Lumber Manufacturers, the Truck Loggers Association or companies like TimberWest…. The Association of B.C. Forest Professionals clearly would be another organization that we would want to use. The Community Forest Association, another strong organization that could play a key role.

[1520]

Another certainly significant group, of course, would be the WSCA, the Western Silvicultural Contractors Association — John Betts and the crew — and a very important group, the B.C. Forestry Climate Change Working Group; the College of Applied Biology.

In the mining sector there are a number of different areas, like the Coal Association of Canada, that would be interested. There are large areas of deforestation that work could be done on. Even smaller groups like the Kamloops Exploration Group and Smithers Exploration Group are on our list to talk to, and the Placer Miners Association.

In the energy sector, I mentioned B.C. Hydro already as a major player — large lineal corridors that account for areas of deforestation — and B.C. Transmission Corp, the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, the Association of Petroleum Producers, the Canadian Association of Geophysical Contractors, Independent Power B.C., the Canadian Wind Energy Association.

Then when you get into the tourism associations, there are a significant number of groups — COTA, of course; the Outdoor Recreation Council; B.C. Snowmobile Federation; ATV riders; Canada West Ski Areas Association.

Then when we get into the environmental organizations, clearly all of those organizations need to be part of it. Sierra Club; Pembina Institute; Land Conservancy; the conservation trust; Nature Trust; Wildsight; David Suzuki Foundation; Greenpeace, of course; and ForestEthics would all need to be involved.

Then there are lots of individual associations and groups as well.

As I mentioned earlier, we'll be involved with extensive public consultation and meetings. If this House sees fit

[ Page 5328 ]

to pass this legislation in the next little bit here, we'll be engaging right away with the public and working on developing the regulations, as we've spoken of before.

B. Routley: On

section 4, I understand there's quite a bit of latitude with the power to make regulations. One of my concerns is that with all of this activity, certainly there's going to be someone, I would imagine — I guess this is the question — that would be delegated this authority.

Are we going to have some kind of net deforestation boss running around the Ministry of Forests? Are they going to have their own separate department with separate funding? Is that what's envisioned with all of this separate regulation?

Hon. P. Bell: Currently the delegated authority does rest with the chief forester's office. That's the appropriate place for it, given that the chief forester's office typically is the organization that does the bulk of the measurement; deals with the mapping technology; and has the level of information, as I mentioned earlier to the member opposite, that we'll be basing our measurement and statistics on.

There is some thinking in the ministry that that could transfer over to the competitiveness and innovation division. That is only because, as the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke pointed out, carbon credits are likely to play a role in this, depending on how those carbon credits develop.

If in fact they do, then over time it could be that this would rest with competitiveness and innovation. But time will tell on that one. At this point it rests with the chief forester's office, and no, there won't be a new division created or a net zero czar or anything like that.

B. Routley: Thank you, Minister. I noticed that there's this clause in (3)(c). It's kind of, I guess, a policy-maker's dream — kind of the dream-team clause, if you like.

It says may "make different regulations for different persons, places, things or transactions." This one really has my interest. Could the minister please explain the purpose of such a clause, and if he has some examples of how this might be utilized?

Hon. P. Bell: The member quite correctly has pointed out this is a catch-all regulatory-making-ability provision that's here. It's not unheard of here. It does get used from time to time, this specific phrase.

[1525]

If he checks with the member for Nanaimo, the Attorney General critic, I'm sure he'll be able to confirm that.

It is there because this is new. It is cutting edge. It's not something that we are repeating from another jurisdiction. It's important to have the ability to develop regulations as necessary as we go along with this project. If it was simply a carbon copy from another jurisdiction that we were bringing over, that likely wouldn't be there. We wouldn't feel that it was necessary. But because this is relatively new, and likely other jurisdictions will follow, we need to have that regulatory-making ability.

B. Routley: Thank you, Minister. In (

d) it talks about adopting provisions of a publication or adopting them "as they are amended from time to time." What kind of publication, exactly, are we talking about? Are there a variety of publications? One publication? Is this the Ministry of Forests publication? What exactly is this publication all about, and could we have some specifics of that?

Hon. P. Bell: This particular provision is used when there is a foreign publication, oftentimes, or a publication from another jurisdiction within Canada that we simply want to adopt and bring into place in British Columbia as part of the regulatory environment. It is used under those circumstances.

B. Routley: I forgot to ask the question under "(

c) respecting the methodology by which deforestation and afforestation are to be calculated." It sounds like there's some flexibility in that.

I understood about the satellites flying overhead, and we're going to have some method. I assume it would be by hectares. I don't know whether this is talking about hectares or cubic metres or some other method of calculation. Could you expand on what the other possible meanings of "calculations" under this act could be, other than the two that I just mentioned?

Hon. P. Bell: The principle behind this regulatory-making ability would allow us to specifically define the sampling process required in order to measure the amount of deforestation or afforestation that was taking place in any given year. It would then prescribe that measurement by regulation.

Coming back to the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke, who spoke earlier about the importance of the integrity of a measurement system and that the public have confidence in that measurement system, by having regulatory powers to make a process required through regulation, we think we'll give people that confidence.

N. Macdonald: On behalf of the co-critic and myself, I'd just like to thank staff and the minister for the process. With that, I think we can move along.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

Title approved.

[ Page 5329 ]

Hon. P. Bell: I move that we rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:29 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[1530]

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 5 — Zero Net Deforestation Act

Bill 5, Zero Net Deforestation Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Abbott: I call second reading of Bill 18, the Haida Gwaii Reconciliation Act.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 18 — Haida Gwaii

Reconciliation Act

Hon. G. Abbott: I want to provide my comments here at second reading with respect to the Haida Gwaii Reconciliation Act. It's a great honour to rise and move second reading of this important piece of legislation.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

The legislation enables the government to meet its commitment in the Kunst'aa Guu–Kunst'aayah reconciliation protocol. Specifically, this legislation will provide us with the legal basis for joint decision-making with Haida in relation to land and natural resource management on Haida Gwaii.

But this agreement is more than just legal tools. This agreement is unlike anything we have negotiated in the province before. It is a protocol that's based on reconciliation, on mutual trust and on mutual understanding with the Haida Nation. It moves us beyond decades of uncertainty into a new era of reconciliation with the Haida people, an era that will see new strength in Haida communities by providing equal opportunities on the land base and increasing economic and social capacity.

The protocol now is an important step by the Haida Nation and British Columbia towards a comprehensive reconciliation between the Haida Nation, British Columbia and Canada. In the meantime, this agreement gives us immediate tools to establish a unique government-to-government relationship that enhances certainty on the land base.

The

preamble of the Haida constitution offers a profound introduction to the Haida people. "Our culture, our heritage is the child of respect and intimacy with the land and the sea. Like the forest, the roots of our people are intertwined such that the greatest troubles cannot overcome us. We owe our existence to Haida Gwaii."

Haida Gwaii has for many, many years been the home of the Haida people, the eagle and the raven clans, for as long as history and the archaeology have recorded occupation of the islands. The Haida Nation are world renowned for their cultural diversity, including art, carving, weaving and the rich heritage which is bound by the sea, land, sky and the spirit world.

As current Council of the Haida Nation President Guujaaw describes: "All that we say is ours is of Haida Gwaii. That is our lot, our heritage, our life…and one of the world's great cultures." Indeed, one of the world's great cultures, a culture that has endured many setbacks.

At the time of contact with Europeans around 1774, it is estimated that tens of thousands of Haida people lived in more than two dozen villages throughout the islands. By 1885 after waves of smallpox and measles a Hudson's Bay Company census counted only 800 Haida. By 1915 the population had dropped further, to less than 600 people.

In spite of these epidemics, the ban of the potlatch and the cultural devastation of the residential school system, today the Haida population is 4,000 and growing. About 2,500 Haida members live in Haida Gwaii. Many others live in Vancouver, Prince Rupert and around the world.

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, this legislation will also restore the name Haida Gwaii, replacing the name Queen Charlotte Islands. Known to the Haida as "islands of the people," Haida Gwaii is a stunning, biologically rich archipelago of more than 150 islands on the northwest coast of the province. Restoring the name Haida Gwaii to these islands is a significant act of reconciliation, one that recognizes that the Haida people have lived on these islands for thousands of years and continue to live there today.

This change will be reflected in the language of navigation, on maps, letters and official government correspondence. As well, this name restoration will begin a cultural transformation, one that honours Haida history. Babies born on these islands will say they were born on Haida Gwaii.

[1535]

Geographic names reflect human occupancy and play an important role in our lives, both culturally and politically. Indeed, by restoring the name Haida Gwaii to the islands, we are seeing reconciliation at work.

The measurement of success in reconciliation is the impact our efforts have on people's lives. We know that when communities have control over their economic and social prospects, they are healthier, happier and more prosperous.

This government has long recognized the need for reconciliation with aboriginal people in this province.

[ Page 5330 ]

We believe it is essential to have the voice and participation of aboriginal people in decisions that may impact their rights, and we believe today that through this agreement with the Haida, we are embracing the new relationship principles of mutual respect, reconciliation and recognition.

In the past governments and the Haida were more likely to meet at a blockade or in a courtroom than at the negotiating table. The efforts of negotiators on both sides of the table to come to this unique agreement have been extraordinary. The journey, I know, has been a challenging one, but at the same time exhilarating for those fortunate enough to have been on it.

This agreement represents significant change in how we work together, an agreement that I am confident will prove that peace is productive. Indeed, when we signed this agreement in December, Guujaaw commented that "We're running out of things to fight about." I believe that's true.

In conclusion, I just want to say, first of all, thank you to the Haida leaders and the Haida people without whose strength, fortitude, persistence and patience this agreement would not have been possible. I want to thank negotiators both from the Haida Nation and from the government of British Columbia for the intensive and clearly effective work which they undertook. Although the team was large, I particularly want to thank Trevor Proverbs from the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Lindsay Jones from the ILMB, who worked together very effectively as leads of the team for the province of British Columbia.

I look forward in the years ahead to seeing all of the success that this reconciliation protocol will help bring to the Haida people and to Haida Gwaii, and I look forward to hearing the comments of my fellow legislators in this chamber in respect of second reading of this bill.

B. Simpson: I would like to echo some of the minister's words, and I have a few things to say about this agreement, both in the specific case and in some general comments. But first and foremost, we on this side of the House applaud the work of the government; applaud, as the minister has indicated, the Haida Gwaii National Government, the elders, the hereditary chiefs, the negotiators who have worked on this.

As the minister has characterized it, it is an alternate approach to addressing the issues that are confronting the people of Haida Gwaii, the First Nations in particular. When the president of the Council of the Haida Nation gave his talk in the Legislature, the minister and I were joking that he made sure he cuffed both the government and ourselves on both ends of his speech.

He put HST aside in order to make the speech, and then at the end of the speech indicated that this was progress that was made. He wasn't quite sure why his people kept voting in an NDP MLA because of what happened in the 1990s. Both governments and the Socred government before have struggled to find a relationship with First Nations that doesn't do what I think Guujaaw was referring to about the 1990s: build hope, build expectations and then fail to realize those.

In the case of the Treaty Commission during the 1990s, there was the feeling that there was a more rapid logging and resource extraction throughout the Queen Charlottes in advance of some kind of settlement occurring, and I believe that's what Guujaaw was referring to.

[1540]

Here, what we have in front of us, is a bill that actually enables more comprehensive agreement sitting in behind that bill.

I want to thank the minister and his staff for spending some time with the opposition members when the reconciliation agreement was first announced. The minister was kind enough to make sure I got a briefing on the phone, and then we sat with some of our members, including the member for the North Coast, to get a more fulsome briefing of what the implications of the legislation are relative to the actual agreement, which sits outside of this legislation. We've put the minister on note that we've got some questions about the actual legislation itself — some of the details — but on balance, we believe that this is an appropriate way to go about things.

I had the luxury of having dinner with some friends who came down from Quesnel here last night. We've been together for almost 27 years. Our kids have grown up together and so on, and we were talking about the fact that we now have a little bit of freedom to begin travelling together again.

At the dinner table, we were asking where people would like to go. By happenstance, one of my friends said: "There's only one place I would love to go, and I don't need to travel very far to get there: that's the Queen Charlottes." We had a conversation about the fact that it is now Haida Gwaii, and it is a place of incredible beauty.

I was there first as a young lad in the navy. We were up there doing some work with the young officers that we had. We actually did a rescue off of Masset and came into Masset with a fisherman that had done some damage to himself, and I got to know Masset from that perspective. I then had the luxury of travelling there as an MLA with the MLA for North Coast.

We sat down and had a long conversation with President Guujaaw, and we really got a better sense — I did, at least — of the potential that still exists in that region. As the minister pointed out, the renaming of the Queen Charlottes to Haida Gwaii is part of this bill, and it is definitely appropriate that that area be renamed.

It is one of the few areas in the province of British Columbia where there is effectively an unchallenged claim by a group, the Haida Gwaii, that have a historical record

[ Page 5331 ]

there dating back at least 7,000 years. In the Haida's legend, it's from time immemorial, but archaeological records go back 7,000-10,000 years.

The naming of that region by the discoverers from the settler community…. Basically, it was named after a boat. It was the lead boat in the group of boats that was over there, so I think it's appropriate that it be renamed back. I look forward to seeing the names appear on the navigation charts, etc., to confirm that decision.

One of the things I think that the Haida hoped for…. I know it's an ongoing issue we have within First Nations, and that is the number of First Nations people that now move into urban settings. Approximately two-thirds of Haida actually do not live in the Haida Gwaii islands. They live predominantly down in the Vancouver area.

There is a hope among the Haida people that both the renaming of their place that they live in and a management agreement like this, where resources are being made available, where the Haida can participate in the economy, where the Haida can actually make decisions about the future of that region — not just for present generations to participate in the economy but for future generations — will attract more of the Haida back.

As we've seen recently, the plight of urban aboriginals is something that all governments must turn their attention to. But on the flip side of that plight, a report came out recently that a lot of First Nations are beginning to make progress in urban centres. They are becoming better-educated. They're integrating into society better, but one of the fundamental questions about that is: at what expense to their culture, language? What are we losing as a province and a nation as First Nations assimilate themselves into the urban settings?

[1545]

There is a hope that as part of a result of this management agreement and the reconciliation agreement there will be an opportunity for First Nations from the Haida to come back to where they came from and to be full participants in the economy of that region.

I was in a bit of a panic to get back over here today because I was at the Fraser Institute luncheon this afternoon, where Tom Flanagan was talking about his most recent book where he and a number of authors are proposing to the federal government a way to address the issue of the Indian Act and the failure of the Indian Act to allow private property rights within First Nations reserves.

It was interesting listening to Mr. Flanagan speak because one of the things that he pointed out…. As critic for Aboriginal Relations, I've been trying to understand what some of our options are in the province of British Columbia, where we can go with First Nations rights and title, what we can do in the absence of rights and title, how we can engage First Nations in a different way.

One of the things that Mr. Flanagan pointed out is that under the Indian Act, we have absolutely structured First Nations and our relationships with First Nations to exclude them from our economy. They are actually not full participants in the economy because we don't allow rights of private ownership and we don't attract investment into reserves and all of those things.

It struck me, as I was flying back over, that that's really the attempt of this bill and what the agreement that sits behind this bill is trying to do. It's actually trying to fulfil the promise of the Premier of a new relationship with First Nations. That new relationship is predicated on shared decision-making on a government-to-government basis, predicated on revenue- and resource-sharing and, also, on the fact that First Nations have the right — without necessarily having the legal definition of that — to have a say in what happens over the resources in their traditional territories. I believe that this reconciliation agreement does that.

It would be nice if I could say that the new relationship, of course, was translating across the board throughout the province in that fashion. But without question, as I meet with First Nations all around the province, they tell me they believe that the new relationship is more words than substance. The most recent example of that, of course, is Site C and the response of the treaty 8, the Carrier-Sekani and others who are asking where the new relationship is.

When you make an announcement like Site C and you're not at the table with those First Nations in a meaningful way, in a government-to-government relationship, they get caught off guard that that project is somehow going to proceed, and they feel like an afterthought as a result.

With respect to this arrangement, as we understand it, there will be a very unique arrangement to facilitate government-to-government dialogue, and that's the management team that will be established. It's a management council made up of two individuals from the House of Assembly for the Council of Haida Nations and two members representing the provincial government.

I think it's unique, and it's interesting. I'll be canvassing the minister more about the structure of this as we get into third reading. But the fact that it's a balance of two and two…. There is an appointed chair, but the chair is only appointed as a default where the two members of the provincial government and two members of the Haida government can't reach agreement among themselves. I think that's a unique and interesting way to make decisions.

The ability of the Haida, of course, to make this work will be based on whether or not the government is actually able to finish the remainder of the negotiations. As we know, there are a lot of details that still remain to be hammered out. There is money up front. One of the things that I like is the fact that the Haida are being enabled to not only purchase some licences directly — I believe we'll have willing sellers in that area — but they're also going to get a 120,000-cubic-metre forest licence.

[ Page 5332 ]

Again, it remains to be seen where that volume is going to be and all of the details, but that's the level at which First Nations should actually be engaged with their land base — 120,000 cubic metres as opposed to what we've seen in forest range agreements, forest range opportunities where they're as small as 6,000 cubic metres. They're not economically viable. They're simply a way to give First Nations some money up front with no real attempt to allow First Nations back onto the land base in a meaningful way.

[1550]

This agreement seems to address that with large volumes of timber and the ability to actually purchase licences from willing sellers. I look forward to seeing what happens with that as it evolves and as the Haida actually are equipped to be able to meaningfully manage the land base that they have on the islands.

The other very interesting aspect to this in our discussion with the minister, of course, is the whole carbon question. Both the reconciliation agreements recognize for the first time this fledgling carbon economy. I'm not quite sure how that will work its way out in the actual reconciliation agreement and how it will work out in details, but the fact that there is the carbon in there is interesting. I think it's got foresight to it, and I look forward to seeing that evolve.

I congratulate the negotiators and the First Nations who made it possible to look forward and say: "Where is the future economy?" We need to make sure that the future economy is recognized in these agreements, because this bill that we have in front of us is actually enabling the minister to make amendments as we go through a transition period to make sure that we start aligning up the Forest Act and the Land Act and other things as we understand better what the reconciliation agreement means relative to the existing provincial legislation.

The other aspect of this that's crystal-clear — and I think people need to understand it — is that this is the provincial government sitting down with the Haida government. The federal government is not party to this, and the treaty process is still the umbrella discussions and negotiations that are occurring over top of this.

That's why it's unique and interesting that the provincial government is coming with what is within their purview — land and resources — and trying to make arrangements with the Haida that they have some control over those lands and resources as the higher-level discussion with the federal government over the eventual reconciliation — the recognition of Haida rights and title over the area that they designate as their traditional territory — still unfolds.

One of the things that we're curious about here is: can we use this approach as a model in other places? Of course, that's more complicated because in other places there's not as clear or uncontested rights and title as there is in the Haida situation. I know in my area — for example, the northern Shuswap — we're moving down the path of an offer from government. They were looking at that offer, and the Nazko to the north put in an overlapping claim late in the day because they have some contested areas that they want resolved.

That's not the case with Haida, and that's why the reconciliation agreement is possible while the treaty process continues. However, I believe that there are other opportunities for us to look at this because the coast First Nations, midcoast, have a reconciliation agreement that they're working out.

Is it possible to look at tribal councils, other national governments, to sit with them and say: "Okay, one of the things that you need to do as a national government, as a tribal council, is resolve some of your internal disputes, because we would like to sit and, in lieu of an immediate treaty, look at this reconciliation approach to see if we can facilitate having more control over the land base, more control over the decisions that are occurring, and see if this is actually a way to put the new relationship into practice in a very meaningful way." We'd certainly be interested in engaging in those discussions.

With that, I have one final comment, and it comes from what I just had to say. There's an interesting clause in this bill. This is Bill 18, Haida Gwaii Reconciliation Act. At the end of the

preamble and the whereases, the final statement in the

whereas

preamble is: "Therefore Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia, enacts as follows…."

[1555]

Madam Speaker, after five years at this, I sure would like it if that was actually taken more to heart, that the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, every member of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, actually had the ability to give advice and consent for legislation — particularly legislation as important as this, but all legislation. It's interesting to watch the federal parliament and the Speaker of the federal parliament assert the supremacy of parliament over the Prime Minister's Office in that case.

I would like to put a challenge to the minister. We've done it before. It's not a surprise. We do have standing committees of the Legislature. We have a standing committee for aboriginal relations. It would have actually been very nice, on this good news of the reconciliation agreement with the Haida or midcoast or whatever, if we actually used the tools of the Legislature, if a standing committee of the Legislature so designated as aboriginal relations — it's part of our standing committees — actually was engaged in the formulation of legislation like this, was engaged in trying to see if there are other opportunities for us.

I believe British Columbians believe that when they elect a member to the Legislative Assembly, they're supposed to be engaged and involved in the governing of

[ Page 5333 ]

this province. We have to find a way to do that so that we don't find out by press release or that we don't find out when a bill comes into the House, what the mind of the government is.

I think we need to figure out a way to move beyond electioneering. We need to figure out a way to move beyond the nonsense that passes for question period in here — which seems to be our only focus because we're mired in electioneering — to actually work together as legislators and as lawmakers on a day-to-day basis, to figure out ways that we can actually participate in making arrangements like this better and making arrangements like this go further around the province and to resolve, in particular, our First Nations issues around this province.

As the Treaty Commission pointed out, British Columbia has lost opportunities because our failure — year over year, decade over decade, administration over administration, political party over political party — to address the First Nations rights and title issue in a meaningful way, to bring them into our society and economy in a meaningful way, is a failure for all British Columbians because it does not allow us to maximize the potential that is there. As the PricewaterhouseCoopers report pointed out for the Treaty Commission, $10 billion over the next 15 years will be lost because of our failure to address this very issue.

I know in my area the Prosperity mine hearings finished on Monday. I met with some of the First Nations leaders and Council of Canadians. I've met with Taseko Mines. That process divides us; it divides that community.

My question is: is there a way that we can work together as legislators to go and figure out different ways so that our communities are not divided over the land base, they're not divided over rights and title, and they're not divided over economic development. We actually have the ability to provide, as this

preamble states, "advice and consent" by the Legislative Assembly on resolutions to the things that matter to British Columbians.

So I applaud the government on this. It would have been nice if there had been opportunities for us to be involved in it. I make the offer to the minister and to the Premier. We would like to look at opportunities to see if this is a model that can in fact be expanded. We understand the special nature of Haida Gwaii, but are there opportunities for us to work through some of the First Nations' existing organizations to do these kinds of things?

I look forward to some of the more detailed questions and, in particular, the questions about how this will be communicated as the details are fleshed out. As the Haida go through the transition period, how is it going to be communicated? How will people know how this is evolving? That will be the nature of most of my questions as we get into third reading.

Hon. P. Bell: I am very pleased to stand up in support of the Haida Gwaii Reconciliation Act. I have a strong personal tie that's developed over the last 4½ or so years with Guujaaw and with the people of Haida Gwaii, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal.

[1600]

I just fully see this as an exciting time on Haida Gwaii, an area that has not had the level of economic success that many other parts of the province have seen over the last decade or so, but an area that has incredible potential.

I'll share it with you, Madam Speaker, my first opportunity to visit Haida Gwaii. This goes back a few years ago. Although the date evades me at the moment, it is one that is remembered throughout British Columbia, because it was the day that the windstorms came through Stanley Park and blew over all of the big trees. I'm sure someone will be able to look that date up and recall, the member for Vancouver–West End…. December 2006, was it?

An Hon. Member: Yes, it was.

Hon. P. Bell: December 2006. It was my first opportunity to visit the islands, and I spent about three hours or so on that blustery, windy day, when we saw such devastation on the Lower Mainland, in a helicopter flying around the islands with Guujaaw. It was quite a lesson, first of all, in how to make sure that you didn't get airsick because it was very rough, but also a bit of a lesson in humanity too, I think.

Guujaaw is an incredible leader. He is an individual who has never forgotten his responsibility to his elders, to his youth, to all of the citizens of Haida Gwaii — not just aboriginal but non-aboriginal as well. The passion that he brings to his leadership is exemplary. He is an individual. Certainly, in this role we have an opportunity to deal with many individuals, and you don't always get the sense that they are in it for the good of the larger group of people. Guujaaw is definitely one of those individuals whose interest and passion is in supporting the islands, the economy of the islands, the healthy communities of the islands.

For all of those reasons I think this is a tremendous step forward to really work in a new way, to reconcile our differences with the Haida. I remember when I first touched this file about five years ago. I think many believed that we would not be in a position to reconcile our differences with the Haida, that it would wind its way through the court cases, that there would continue to be blockades and challenging times.

I remember the first meeting I had with Guujaaw, which happened somewhat by accident, although I'm not entirely sure. It might have been by accident on my part; I don't think it was by accident on Guujaaw's part. I think he had predetermined that this was an opportunity to meet with me and try to advance some of his agendas.

[ Page 5334 ]

I remember us discussing the need to build agreement slowly. I remember expressing to him that I believed that we needed to build the muscle of agreement; that that muscle of agreement — much like your leg muscles and your heart and your lungs, if you're going to run a marathon — is something you had to build over time; and that we hadn't had a strong relationship.

We hadn't had the kind of relationship that allowed us to really trust each other, to look each other in the eyes and say, when we shook each other's hand, that it was a meaningful agreement, that we'd honour that agreement and that we'd move forward together. That was built for all kinds of reasons, I'm sure, on both sides of the equation. That trust didn't exist.

What I said at the time to Guujaaw was that we needed to start building on small agreements. We needed to find little points of agreement where we would both believe that we could find a resolution to specific issues, that we'd be able to then build on that agreement — much like an individual who wanted to go out and run a marathon would start out by perhaps going for a long walk on the first day, and then after a while, start to jog a little bit and build those muscles that will allow that individual to go and run a marathon.

If we were going to run a marathon…. And for me, a reconciliation agreement is likely a sub-2½-hour marathon, an incredible feat for almost any individual. Although I know the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation did his half-marathon in slightly under two hours, and that was remarkable for him as well.

In order to achieve that kind of a standard, you needed to build the muscle of agreement over time. That first meeting was in Richmond. That was followed by the visit when I went up to Haida Gwaii, because I said that if we're really going to start building that muscle of agreement, we needed to do it on the islands. We couldn't do it in Victoria or Vancouver or Prince George, for that matter, or anywhere else. We had to do it on the islands to really start building that agreement.

[1605]

So I went up and spent that day on Haida Gwaii, and I think it changed my view, probably forever, of what we needed to do to build new relationships with aboriginal peoples across this province. That eight or so hours I spent with Guujaaw completely changed my perspective.

That day we agreed to work on three priority areas. They were relatively small priority areas. They weren't ones that really, in my view or in Guujaaw's view, should be hard to accomplish, but I encouraged Guujaaw and Arnie Bellis, who was the other key leader in Haida Gwaii and still is a resident of Haida Gwaii, to stay focused on those three relatively simple accomplishments.

I mandated Lindsay Jones, who's been mentioned in this House already, a key staff member for the integrated land management bureau, to try and start building to those agreements.

We provided a 30-day mandate. I said to Guujaaw: "I'll come back in 30 days. My hope is that we can find agreement on these three issues in 30 days and sign off on those agreements, and then we'll continue to build that muscle of agreement as we go forward on bigger and better areas, until we do run the sub-2½-hour marathon that we're seeing here today."

Sure enough, after 31 days Guujaaw and Lindsay and Arnie had exceeded all expectations, had actually gone much further than anyone could have ever possibly expected and had got to a place where not only had we found agreement on those three issues, but we'd largely developed the skeleton of a land use plan that really is the spirit of a new model of reconciliation on the islands. I think we learned from that that we could do things together and that it was possible to find agreement.

I have to say that so often people focus on what they disagree on. Yet you know, by and large, the vast majority of the issues that we deal with in this House and outside this House…. Whether it's opposition members or government members, we agree on 90 percent of the things that are in front of us. If we would just focus on areas of agreement, I think we'd run out of time long before we'd run out of agreement. Think about what we could accomplish.

This is an example of exactly that. That's where a strong leader from the Haida Nation said, "It's time to put our differences aside. It's time for us to figure out how we can have better lives for our people, take down the roadblocks and start working with government," and a strong individual like Lindsay Jones was able to start building on that agreement.

Although I didn't make it back on the 30th day to Haida Gwaii, I did get back…. I think it was the 32nd day I got back to Haida Gwaii, because of schedules, and we did move forward.

That built a land use agreement that was signed off about three years ago that really was historic and moved forward to a new model of practices on Haida Gwaii. It started to bring the aboriginal peoples in and the non-aboriginal peoples in, but that wasn't enough, because we needed to move beyond that and get to where we are today, to a reconciliation agreement.

I would describe that initial land use plan as a good, solid 10K, since we're using running analogies today — a difficult and challenging feat but not an impossible one. We moved on and built on that, and my colleague the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation took over the file and started moving it forward to that marathon.

You know, I think the early days of agreement, the ability for us to focus on things that we could agree on as opposed to just the things that we disagree on, really allowed for that to continue to build and develop.

[ Page 5335 ]

That's a lesson for all of us to learn, in this House and outside this House and with First Nations people across the province. If we'd focus our attention on the good things that we can work on collaboratively, where our interests align, it's amazing what we can accomplish. I think this particular act and this bill is a real testament to that.

You know, it's an interesting place, the islands of Haida Gwaii, because you have a number of small communities. One of the things that I saw early on was that those communities really did not have their views aligned, and they weren't working collaboratively on the achievement of goals and objectives.

One of the unique things that's occurred…. I remember the meeting very, very well. It occurred in the Birch Room in these buildings about three and a half years ago. It was when the Council of the Haida Nation, the chiefs from Skidegate and Old Massett and also the mayors of the three communities and the regional district reps came together with a request to move forward on the land use agreement at the time, with the belief that the land use agreement for Haida Gwaii would build a better economy and a better way of life for all the peoples of the Queen Charlotte Islands, at the time, now called Haida Gwaii.

[1610]

To see that alignment for the first time, to see everyone coming together and saying, "We want to work together to start building an economy," I think was very exciting and spells nothing but good things for the communities.

As we move forward in the debate of this bill in this House, I know that it will be broadly supported from both sides of the House, but I think we need to take the lessons learned from this reconciliation act and start bridging our differences with other First Nations peoples across the province. You know, leaders like Guujaaw don't come along every day, but he's an individual that I think we should all turn to for advice to help direct us in the change in the relationship that we're looking for, for First Nations.

This has been, I think, a very positive period, and the Premier often says that it's amazing how little changes in two years but how much changes in ten years. When I think back over the last 4½ years or so that I've been involved in this file, I'd agree with him. There wasn't much changed in the first two years, but now that we're into 4½ years, we're starting to see significant change and growth. I'm confident that when we turn and look at this file 5½ years from now and see what's been accomplished over the last ten years, it's something that we can all be proud of.

As I close my comments, I would like to again pass on my congratulations to Trevor Proverbs, to Lindsay Jones, to Guujaaw and to the people of Haida Gwaii. This is a tremendous accomplishment. It is a model for us to all look at and understand and learn from and build on, and it is, for me, a very important day in this House, in the history of the province of British Columbia.

S. Chandra Herbert: I rise today to support the Haida Gwaii Reconciliation Act. It brings me great delight to be able to rise in this House and offer my support. One would wonder, from the West End — urban riding, south of the province, pretty far away from Haida Gwaii — why this would be important to me and my constituents. Well, I think naming is important. I think being able to identify a place for what it is with an appropriate name, which comes from the people who live there, is very important.

Shakespeare said: "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." Certainly, I've been to Haida Gwaii, and if I didn't know what the name was, where the place was, it certainly would still remain an amazing, incredible place, but to pretend that a name is not important…. I know Romeo and Juliet was a very different story, but in this case would not be appropriate, because we need to remember that this place is the land of the people. It's Haida Gwaii and a strong nation of Haida people with a rich history that we can learn so much from.

I thank the Minister of Forests, who spoke earlier about the need to understand and look at this act, the idea of reconciliation — the idea that we can sit together, learn from each other and work together. I thank him for those comments because that is one of the frustrations I have with this place. We do not do that enough. Opposition and government do not sit enough through committees and places like that to work out differences.

I know there are a number of committees named in this House, but very rarely do they actually meet to do what the Minister of Forests was suggesting we should do more often. So we need to learn from governments, from nations like the Haida, that you can work things through if you actually sit down and respect each other.

I'm very excited to be able to support the Haida Gwaii Reconciliation Act, because it's an important step in bridging the difference, learning about the history of what went on in Haida Gwaii. I've never called it the Queen Charlottes, because I never quite understood why that name was attached there in the first place.

Interjection.

S. Chandra Herbert: I'm not old enough, says the Minister of Forests. Well, maybe that's a good thing. I think that is a good thing. He offers it as a compliment.

I think learning through the history there…. We learn a lot about ourselves and a lot about how our governments of all parties through our time have operated in this province. It has not always been — actually, in many cases, has quite rarely been — a government of respect, of understanding and working together.

[1615]

[ Page 5336 ]

We are still stuck in a paradigm of "might is right." "I've got the stick, so I'm the leader" — I guess that could be the mace in this very place — "and if you do not have the power, I can do whatever I want to you or to the people that you work with."

We need to shift the paradigm, and I believe that our First Nations folks and the people in Haida Gwaii have a lot to teach us. The Haida Heritage Centre…. I spent some time there while I was visiting on a tourism, arts and culture tour. It's an incredible place and something that I would hope every British Columbian gets an opportunity to visit.

However, I know that because of the challenges both socially and economically in our province, many people will never get a chance to visit Haida Gwaii, but to know that it is there, that a people who have faced such hardship have come back and have such strong cultural and economic ideas and solutions to offer us all is truly something that we all should be proud of and supportive of.

I won't go on too much longer on this, aside from saying that Haida Gwaii is a very special place and it means a lot to me, even having spent just a little over a week there. It's a spiritual place and a place where the connection between our earth and people, t