2002 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MARCH 26, 2002

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 4, Number 11

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Supply Act (No. 1), 2002 (Bill 13)

Hon. G. Collins

Point of Order (Speaker's Ruling)

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Disabled skiing events

W. McMahon

U.S. government position on free trade

R. Visser

Softwood lumber exports to U.S.

P. Bell

Oral Questions

Preventative health care services for children

J. Kwan

Hon. S. Hawkins

Health care service levels

J. MacPhail

Hon. S. Hawkins

Hon. G. Campbell

Bullying prevention

L. Mayencourt

Hon. R. Coleman

Hon. C. Clark

SkyTrain Millennium Line

H. Bloy

Hon. J. Reid

Provision of extracurricular activities by teachers

W. Cobb

Hon. C. Clark

Second Reading of Bills

Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2002 (Bill 2)

Hon. G. Collins

J. MacPhail

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services

(continued)

J. MacPhail

Hon. T. Nebbeling

Hon. G. Abbott

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Human Resources (continued)

S. Orr

Hon. M. Coell

J. Kwan

M. Hunter

I. Chong

[ Page 2125 ]

TUESDAY, MARCH 26, 2002

The House

met at 2:04 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Hon. G.

Halsey-Brandt: It's a great pleasure for me this afternoon to introduce Mr.

Chuck MacDonald from the Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans 284 in Steveston and

a number of his colleagues from the ANAF and members of the Royal Canadian

Legion. Can members please make them welcome.

[1405]

Manhas: It's my pleasure to rise and recognize a number of ex-service men

and women and visitors who have come to Victoria from the Tri-Cities and all

around the lower mainland. They met with the Solicitor General and myself

earlier today to talk about issues of concern to service clubs and branches of

the Royal Canadian Legion.

We have

Donald Bone from the Port Coquitlam Legion; Mr. Ken Black and Mr. Alex Wilson

from Legion branch 48, Vancouver; Mr. Robert Klempau and Mr. Mike Kirby, 100

Club in Vancouver; Mr. Beesh Wawrzasek; Madam Betty Jensen, chair of the New

Horizons Community Drop-in Society; Mr. Derek Paget, branch 16, Coquitlam; Mr.

Chuck McDonald of branch 284 in Steveston. And representing Soroptimist

International of the Tri-Cities and their diabolical president, Karon Fuson, we

have Beatrice Kelly and Debbie Lloyd. Would the House please extend them a warm

welcome.

Hon. J.

Murray: I have the pleasure of introducing Mr. Fred Sparkes today. He's a

longtime New Westminster resident, a retired school administrator who

contributed 35 years to our education system and our students. Mr. Sparkes is

involved in many organizations in New Westminster as a director, as chair of the

board or as president. Fred is a staunch defender of the well-being of our

community in New Westminster, and I'd like everybody to please make him welcome.

McMahon: Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure today to introduce to the House Maude

Seleck, a Belgian Rotary exchange student hosted by the Revelstoke Rotary Club.

She's here with her host family from Revelstoke, Barb Davidson with her children

Peter and Roslyn, together with Barb's mom, Dorothy Johnstone from Victoria.

Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Bray:

It's my pleasure to introduce in the gallery today 26 very enthusiastic grade 6

and 7 students from Sir James Douglas. They're accompanied by five parents and

their teacher, Ms. T. Hehn, and I'd ask that the House please make them very

welcome.

Hon. G.

Bruce: Today in the gallery are representatives of the Coalition of B.C.

Businesses, who are working hard and diligently in attempting to get the

province of British Columbia back on its feet again in an economic recovery. I

know that the House would join with me in welcoming them all today to the House:

Suromitra Sanatani, Don Adams, Kevin Evans, Phil Hochstein, Janet Marwick, Don

Monsour, Glen Ringdal, Mark Startup, John Winter and Mark von Shellwitz. Would

you please give them a nice, warm welcome.

Sultan: We have with us in the gallery today two distinguished citizens of

the North Shore, Dale and Russell Bridges. Would you please make them welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 2002

Hon. G.

Collins presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled

Supply Act (No. 1), 2002.

Hon. G.

Collins: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Collins: This supply bill is introduced to provide supply for the

continuation of government programs until the government's estimates for the

fiscal year 2002-03 have been debated and voted upon in this assembly. The bill

provides interim supply for government operating expenses for the initial two

months of the 2002-03 fiscal year to take us to the end of May. The bill allows

time to debate and pass the estimates. This interim supply is required because

existing voted appropriations expire on March 31, 2002.

[1410]

This bill

will also provide interim supply for other financing requirements. The bill

seeks supply for 50 percent of the year's financing transaction requirements for

capital assets, expenditures, and loans and investments, and 100 percent of

financing transactions for revenues collected for and transferred to other

entities. This will allow time to debate these requirements. This interim supply

is also required because existing voted expropriations will expire on March 31,

I move that

the bill be referred for second reading at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Bill 13

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Point of Order

(Speaker's Ruling)

AMENDMENT TO MOTION

ON TUITION FEE FREEZE

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, on Monday morning, March 25, the Minister of Advanced

Education moved

[ Page 2126 ]

an amendment to Motion No. 5 standing in the name of the member for

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. The original motion reads as follows:

[Be it resolved that this House opposes the lift of the

tuition fee freeze.]

The

proposed amendment reads as follows:

[That Motion No. 5 be amended by striking out all the words

after "that" and substituting: "This House supports the

return of autonomy to B.C.'s public post-secondary institutions to set their

own tuition fees."]

The Leader

of the Opposition raised a point of order submitting that the amendment was out

of order because it constituted a direct negative of the motion under debate.

The Chair has had an opportunity to examine the amendment. The direct negative

theory, as raised by the Leader of the Opposition, has in the past been

successfully argued to rule amendments out of order. The question before me is

whether or not the amendment falls into this category.

Perhaps the

clearest statement dealing with this specific matter is contained in Erskine

May's twenty-second edition, page 343, which reads as follows:

"The

object of an amendment may be either added to modify a question in such a

way as to increase its acceptability or to present to the House a different

proposition as an alternative to the original question.

"The

latter purpose may be effected by moving to omit all or most of the words of

the question after the first word "that" and to substitute an

alternative proposition, which must, however, be relevant to the subject of

the question."

It is clear

that the amendment is relevant to the subject of the original motion and that it

substitutes an alternative proposition. Accordingly, the questioned amendment

does not amount to a direct negative and is in order.

Thank you

for your attention.

Statements

(Standing Order 25b)

DISABLED SKIING EVENTS

McMahon: It's a pleasure to rise today to talk about two very important

groups, the Canadian disabled alpine ski team and the Canadian Association of

Disabled Skiers, and two events that have taken place this past month in

Kimberley, British Columbia.

The

Canadian Association of Disabled Skiers, together with the Kimberley Alpine Ski

Resort, hosted the World Cup finals for the disabled from February 27 through

March 3 this year. The finals were a three-event series which started in January

in France and then moved to Austria and back to Canada and Kimberley. Canada's

national team competed on all three race series.

The

athletes compete in a three-category competition system: visually impaired,

stand-up and sit skiers. The athletes' disabilities can be varying degrees of

blindness. Stand-up includes arm and leg amputees, cerebral palsy and partial

paralysis; while sitting includes leg amputees and varying degrees of paralysis

in the lower body.

After

competing in Kimberley, all teams left for Salt Lake City for the 2002

Paralympics on March 3. A week ago I had the privilege of welcoming the athletes

back to Kimberley for the Canadian Association of Disabled Skiers annual Ski

Festival. The festival is for both recreational skiers and our national

champions, and what an exciting evening it was. From the parade of flags by the

athletes to actually meeting them individually, I can tell you how proud they

were and how proud we were of them. What an exciting year they've had.

Learning a

sport often requires an adventurous leap of faith, a strong commitment to

yourself and to your goals, and an inner belief in what you are doing. It takes

endurance and the ability to draw on deep reserves of energy when it is needed

the most. These athletes showed us their commitment. I read somewhere once that

everyone will compete in life in one way or another, but life is not a

competition. It's a gift to be shared, and they shared it.

[1415]

There are

many volunteers involved in both events under the direction of Jerry and Annie

Johnston of Kimberley. Jerry received the Order of Canada in 2000. For more than

30 years he has done what was once thought impossible: he taught skiing to

persons with mobility impairments, and he founded the Canadian Association of

Disabled Skiers. So to our athletes who competed and to the staff and many

volunteers who support them, thank you.

U.S. GOVERNMENT

POSITION ON FREE TRADE

Visser: You know, it was a little more than a month ago that President Bush,

ironically, on a trade mission to Asia, stopped in Alaska, where he said to an

assembled crowd: "I want to thank the members of the Canadian Armed Forces

who are here. I want to tell you something: we've got no better friends than

Canada. They stand up with us on this incredibly important crusade to defend our

freedom, this campaign to do what is right for our children and our

grandchildren."

I think the

President is right. The United States has no better friends, and our commitment

to this crusade cannot be questioned. On September 20 of last year, a day after

Indonesia offered its support for the war on terrorism, trade representative

Robert B. Zoellick and the President met with President Megawati of Indonesia

where, ironically, they lifted the tariff on 11 Indonesian products, including

lumber. In a press release, Mr. Zoellick stated: "…expanding trade with

Indonesia means new opportunities for American workers, consumers, farmers and

entrepreneurs." Last May President Bush declared: "Open trade is not

just an economic opportunity; it is a moral imperative."

[ Page 2127 ]

The

greatest irony of all, Mr. Speaker, is that during the final hours of the

collapsing talks around softwood lumber, President Bush was in Monterrey,

Mexico, and South America as a champion of free trade, where he said:

"Trade brings new technology, new ideas and new habits.… When trade

advances, there's no question but the fact that poverty retreats."

Well, Mr.

Speaker, if you're sitting in a forest-dependent community like Campbell River,

Terrace or Vanderhoof wondering about your future, you'll be asking how anyone

could be so hypocritical. You're asking how on the one hand the U.S.

administration can be so passionate about the need to remove trade barriers and

create open world markets but on the other hand so brutally and outrageously

close off borders to someone they continually trumpet as no better friend.

Those

resolute Canadians and British Columbians are getting angry, and rightfully so.

They see this U.S. government talk the talk of free trade around the world, but

all the while forest-dependent communities and families in this country are

forced to walk the plank.

SOFTWOOD LUMBER EXPORTS TO U.S.

P. Bell:

I rise to speak to the softwood issue as well.

March 21

was a sad day in the history of the relationship between our neighbours to the

south and Canada. On that day the Americans clearly demonstrated that they are

not true free traders but in fact are protectionists and lacking in vision. Mr.

Speaker, this disagreement between Canada and the U.S. goes back many decades.

We've travelled this road three times before and have been successful with the

WTO. I find it frustrating that despite the ruling of international trade

tribunals, the Americans refuse to admit that we do not subsidize our industry

but that in fact we operate an efficient, state-of-the-art industry that they

find difficult to compete with.

Mr.

Speaker, just last week President Bush was in Mexico to advocate for free trade

in Latin America while they refused to negotiate with us in good faith. Well, I

say to Latin America: take a look at how the Americans have honoured the free

trade agreement with Canada and specifically softwood. I believe that the rest

of the world's notion of free trade and the Americans' notion of free trade are

somewhat different.

I want to

say today that British Columbians will not lie down and accept this ruling.

We've fought similar decision in the past and won, and we'll do it again. The

Americans need to know that when they need friends, they've turned to Canada.

When they need resources, they've turned to Canada. The United States needs to

know that British Columbians are united in taking the action necessary to have

open and unfettered access, and we will succeed.

[1420]

Mr.

Speaker: That concludes members' statements.

Oral Questions

PREVENTATIVE HEALTH CARE

SERVICES FOR CHILDREN

J. Kwan:

Yesterday, once again, the lie was put to the government's promise to

improve patient care. British Columbians found out that the government's

planning to make deep cuts to patients services in Vancouver. These cuts include

eliminating programs for children to detect and treat vision, hearing and dental

problems. The health board admits these cuts will affect the growth and

development of the children.

To the

Minister of Health Planning: these proposed cuts are mean-spirited, and they're

shameful. Will the minister quit the rhetoric of the new-era flexibility agenda

and see to it that no cuts whatsoever are made to the vital health services to

children?

Hon. S.

Hawkins: The health authorities have been given the challenge of looking at

their regions and deciding how they can best meet the needs of patients in their

regions. Some of the documents the member has seen are working documents. There

have been no decisions made. Frankly, every time this member gets up and is

critical of the health care system, she should think back about the last ten

years of her government and the decisions they made and think about what abject

failures they were in managing the health care system and leaving it for this

government to sort out and fix.

J. Kwan:

No one wants to hear about how this minister is providing flexibility and how

the regions are just developing working documents. All that means is that this

minister is washing her hands of the broken health care promises.

Parents and

children depend on preventative vision and hearing treatment. Eliminating these

programs will mean that parents won't be able to detect the health problems

before it's too late. We simply cannot let that happen. Again, to the minister:

will she show some leadership as the Minister of Health Planning and step in,

fund these programs now to ensure that preventative health care is there for the

children of British Columbia?

Hon. S.

Hawkins: Again, the health authorities know they are required to meet a

certain standard in providing care to patients in their regions. They are

working on plans. Yes, it's challenging. They are working with a system that is

broken, thanks to the poor management and the poor planning of the last ten

years of that government.

Choices.

You know, it's about making choices. That's what that member's Leader of the

Opposition used to say. The choices they made over the last ten years in funding

fast ferries, in a convention centre that never materialized…. All those

millions and millions of dollars have left the system in such a mess. Imagine

what that money could have funded. Instead they

[ Page 2128 ]

made choices to do that, and unfortunately we're left with a system that

needs to be better managed, that needs to be better planned…

Mr.

Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. S.

Hawkins: …and without…

Mr.

Speaker: Thank you, hon. member.

Hon. S.

Hawkins: …political interference. We expect….

Mr.

Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. S.

Hawkins: We expect our health authorities to do that.

HEALTH CARE SERVICE LEVELS

MacPhail: The difficulty for this minister is that this isn't an infomercial

open cabinet meeting. It's actually the domain when real answers have to be

provided. This is a real document with real cuts that are going to harm patient

care. The Premier can't stand up and say: "We're putting patients

first."

The

document yesterday outlined substantial cuts in the area of prenatal classes to

mental health and to alcohol and drug treatment. Just among hundreds of cuts,

those are cuts that are a given here. It's clear that as a result of the cuts to

hospital cleaning that are announced in here, as well, there's going to be an

increased likelihood of infection. It's the minister's job to….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order.

Will the

member please now put her question.

MacPhail: It's the minister's job to sign off on these planned cuts. Why

doesn't she go back to the Vancouver health authority, tell them these cuts are

unacceptable and order them now, today, to consult the public about what they

see as best for health care in this province?

[1425]

Hon. S.

Hawkins: We have put over a billion dollars into the health care system over

the last year — over a billion. The health authorities for the first time have

been given budgets on time, and they've been asked to manage within those

budgets. The health authorities are going to have performance contracts for the

first time and standards that they're going to have to meet for patient

outcomes.

The member

knows full well that there are standards, and there are policies. There are

needs that are going to be expected to be met. We've asked the health

authorities to do that without political interference, and we just want them to

be able to do that. No plans have been finalized. We'll let the member know when

they are.

Mr.

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

MacPhail: Today of all days for this government to say they have no plans

finalized and that they're open and accountable…. Here's how the public has to

find out about what goes on in health care. Either they have to have a private

chat with the Premier in his living room on the weekend, or they have to read

secret documents.

They

certainly can't get answers directly, in the public, from this government at all

— from the Premier, the Minister of Health Planning or the Minister of Health

Services. I actually don't believe the Minister of Health Services knows what's

going on. Secretiveness is the problem. Every week — every day, actually —

the public learns something new about deep cuts that this government is planning

for patient services.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

MacPhail: They have to depend on leaks to find that out….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon.

member, please put your question now. Thank you.

MacPhail: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I'll take the time the minister has for

responding.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

MacPhail: They actually have to read documents or be in the living room of

the minister. Before she gives the green light to huge cuts…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order.

Please put

the question now, hon. member.

MacPhail: …to patient services, will she do her job, come out of the

backrooms or the living room and consult with the public on what her

government's plans are to cut patient care?

Hon. G.

Campbell: One of the challenges the opposition has is that they spend so

little time actually doing their homework. The fact of the matter is that this

government has added over $1 billion to health services so patients get the care

they need in this province.

[ Page 2129 ]

The fact is

that after ten years with no plan, after ten years with no support to health

care givers, after ten years of no support to nurses, no support to doctors, no

support to health workers, this government is acting with the people of British

Columbia and with health authorities to make sure we restore health care to meet

the needs of patients in British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. The member for Vancouver-Burrard has the floor.

BULLYING PREVENTION

Mayencourt: My question is to the Solicitor General. There have recently

been some reports about school bullying. Last night when I watched the news and

this morning when I opened my newspaper, I saw reports of Dawn-Marie Wesley and

the recent case that took place, and it brought to mind a young man from Surrey

by the name of Hamed Nastoh.

Both of

these young, young children took their own lives because they were bullied

incessantly in school. It seems to me that we must be able to do something much

more to prevent bullying in schools, so I ask the Solicitor General what efforts

he is making to curtail these incidents.

Hon. R.

Coleman: First of all, under no circumstances, at any time, should anyone

think that bullying is right, whether it be by a child, by a teen or by an adult

to another person. We have taken steps, as we had last fall when we issued a

document and information to the school system to help them deal with bullying

within school yards, but outside the school yard it takes place as well.

This has to

be a long-term public education commitment by all people. It requires a

refocusing of resources till they get back down to the community level. This is

what we're doing with our community programs now, so we can get them into the

hands of the volunteers and the people who work within those communities so that

they can have the greatest impact possible to get the message out there.

We'll

continue with that. The message simply is that this is something that's not

acceptable. We'll continue to educate and try to find new formulas on a regular

basis to try to find long-term solutions.

[1430]

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Burrard has a supplementary question.

Mayencourt: My supplementary is to the Minister of Education. The Solicitor

General has indicated some of the programs he's instituting, and he's also

mentioned that we need to direct resources to local communities. I wonder if the

Minister of Education would tell us what she's doing about providing school

districts with the proper resources and information to combat bullying.

Hon. C.

Clark: It's hard to imagine what would drive a child to take her own life,

the kind of environment a child would have to be in for that to happen. The

issue with Dawn-Marie Wesley has brought to all of our attention that bullying

is not a harmless activity. It's not just something kids do that doesn't affect

anybody else. It certainly affects kids. For many, many kids, it scars them for

the rest of their lives. The children who learn to be bullies in school carry

that behaviour with them out into society at large.

The

ministry has worked with the BCCPAC, the B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory

Councils, to put together what I think is a marvellous resource on

anti-bullying. We've distributed two to every secondary school in British

Columbia. It's been acclaimed across the province. In addition to that, there

are resources out there like those prepared by Cindi Seddon, one of the

country's foremost leaders on anti-bullying activities.

Also, most

importantly, this year we will be in a position to find out exactly how well

schools are doing at providing a safe place for children. Through the

student-parent survey, we will be asking children in three grades throughout

high school how safe they feel in their schools. If we find out that children do

not feel safe at their schools, we will be able to act on that information and

ensure that school districts and schools take concrete measures to make sure

that those children feel safe in schools, where they have a right to be able to

learn in a safe place.

SKYTRAIN MILLENNIUM LINE

H. Bloy:

My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Many of my constituents have

been calling my office inquiring about the progress of the SkyTrain Millennium

Line. The availability of public transportation is very important to the

residents of my riding, particularly in light of the fact that we have one of

the fastest-growing communities in the province. Can the Minister of

Transportation tell me the status of the Millennium Line?

Hon. J.

Reid: The Millennium Line is expected to be fully operational by fall of

this year. As the member knows, that's one year later than the original date

that was announced. We've been working very hard to contain the costs of the

project.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Burquitlam has a supplementary.

H. Bloy:

Under the previous government the mismanagement of this project, as you've just

stated, resulted in massive overruns and delays. Can the Minis-

[ Page 2130 ]

ter of Transportation tell me what action she's taking to control the budget

on the SkyTrain Millennium Line?

Hon. J.

Reid: The budget pressures on this project were a real concern to me. We

have taken steps. We have cut the advertising budget for the project quite

severely. We have also worked with the federal government very hard, and we've

be able to obtain a positive GST ruling that has saved us millions and millions

of dollars.

Finally,

there was a very significant claim against the project by SAR that was of great

concern. The project manager, Ross Gilmour, said there was no way…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order.

Hon. J.

Reid: …they would ever have settled with the NDP government. Thankfully,

we're not the NDP government. We did settle, very favourably, this claim.

PROVISION OF EXTRACURRICULAR

ACTIVITIES BY TEACHERS

W. Cobb:

My question is to the Minister of Education. I have received calls and e-mails

from parents who are concerned that some teachers are still refusing to provide

extracurricular activities for their children. For instance, in some cases

students are being denied the opportunity to participate in sports and field

trips. Can the minister tell my constituents how this action can be justified?

[1435]

Hon. C.

Clark: As the member will know, we provided teachers with a 7.5 percent

increase in the recent settlement that we made in Bill 27. Now teachers across

the province, most of them, are providing extracurricular activities. In many,

many districts, extracurricular activities have been restored completely, but

extracurricular activities are a voluntary act for teachers.

I know that

it's good for kids, and I know that many teachers provide it because it's good

for teachers, too, to be involved in their children's education. I can remember

many nights when my dad wasn't around the dining room table, because he was out

coaching basketball for the kids in his school. I think that ultimately the

minority of teachers who are continuing to withdraw extracurricular activities

will recognize that extracurricular activities are good for kids, schools,

teachers and communities, and we can get our schools back to normal as quickly

as possible.

[End

of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of

members, they'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Human Resources.

In this House, I call second reading of Bill 2.

Second Reading of Bills

BUDGET MEASURES

IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2002

Hon. G.

Collins: I move that Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2002, be

now read a second time.

Mr.

Speaker, Bill 2 amends two provincial statutes and repeals several others in

order to implement the non-tax measures announced in the year 2002 provincial

budget.

Section 16(1) of the Emergency Program Act is amended to limit

expenditures from the statutory appropriation of the Ministry of Public Safety

and Solicitor General to those that are a direct result of imminent or actual

emergencies or disasters.

This bill

also includes a technical amendment to the Financial Administration Act to

transfer the authority to make prepaid capital advances to line ministers. The

amendment supports the government's decision to devolve the administration of

Treasury Board–approved capital projects to line ministries.

Bill 2 also

provides for the elimination of two Crown corporations — namely, Forest

Renewal B.C. and Fisheries Renewal B.C. The Forest Renewal Act and supplement

are repealed to effect the dissolution of Forest Renewal B.C. In recognition of

the importance of this natural resource sector, government has established a

forest investment vote in the Ministry of Forests to provide for the operation

and management of forest investments in international marketing.

The

Fisheries Renewal Act is repealed to effect the dissolution of Fisheries Renewal

B.C. The Natural Resource Community Fund Act is repealed. The purpose of the act

was to assist resource-dependent communities to adjust to severe economic

dislocations arising from industry closures. The fund has been inactive for

several years, as other community adjustment and transition mechanisms have been

utilized and evolved for impacted communities.

[1440]

In keeping

with this government's new-era commitment to eliminate business subsidies, Bill

2 repeals the Industrial Development Incentive Act, the Small Business

Development Act and the Grazing Enhancement Special Account Act. The Science and

Technology Fund Act is also repealed. The act established a special account

which provided funding for science and technology initiatives. Funding for these

types of initiatives is now incorporated into the annual budget for the Ministry

of Competition, Science and Enterprise.

Mr.

Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 2.

Mr.

Speaker: On second reading of Bill 2, the Leader of the Opposition.

MacPhail: I was just waiting to see if any of the people who made members'

statements earlier were

[ Page 2131 ]

going to get up and talk to this bill. The points that the members raise in

their members' statements go to the heart of this bill, particularly in the area

of Fisheries Renewal B.C. — the dissolution of that — and the repeal of

FRBC, Forest Renewal B.C., as well.

The

minister suggests that somehow everything's fine because there's been a separate

vote set up under the Minister of Forests and all is well and that there's no

need for any transition programs or extra support for forest-dependent

communities. If ever there was a time for this government to show its support

for resource-dependent communities it is now, yet this bill goes exactly

contrary…. It's contradictory to this government's mouthing of support for

forest-dependent communities.

The vote

that exists under the Ministry of Forests is less than a third of the money that

was for Forest Renewal B.C. Let's be clear about why FRBC was set up. FRBC was

set up to assist communities — not only the industry, in terms of developing a

better product that wasn't subject to countervailing duties — with the

training for workers in the forest industry and to ensure that our companies

stayed as modern, efficient and competitive as possible. All of that's gone now.

All of that's gone.

In fact,

when the previous government even hinted that their caucus was discussing

directing money that should be going to Forest Renewal B.C. to anywhere else,

the then opposition rose up and said: "Oh my god, that's a disaster."

In fact, the then government caucus reached the same conclusion and didn't dare

touch Forest Renewal B.C. money. It went into FRBC according to the law, and

that's where it stayed until this government was elected — until today.

On the very

day that we have government backbench members standing up and saying,

"Isn't America awful? Isn't it awful how unfairly we're being treated by

the Americans?" this government is repealing legislation, the Forest

Renewal Act, that was there solely to help forest-dependent communities exactly

in times such as this.

Of course,

so it should have been set up. The Forest Renewal Act was funded from stumpage.

It was money that came from the industry, came from those communities, came from

our publicly owned resource and went to assist the industry — full stop.

I remember

day after day the then Liberal opposition standing up and suggesting there were

failings of Forest Renewal B.C. As is typical of this government, instead of

trying to correct the failings, real or imagined, they end the whole program and

replace it with nothing — replace it with absolutely nothing that's working

today.

[1445]

The

industry is left with no support whatsoever from this government. In fact,

because of the negotiating strategy of Canada — and, I must say, even this

provincial government — we are left completely vulnerable on any changes made

in the area of forestry — any changes to be challenged either in a negotiating

process or in court.

A system

that was there under Forest Renewal B.C. to assist forest-dependent communities

is gone because of the actions of this government. Anything that now occurs is

open to challenge as a new program.

I expect

that the government isn't going to do much for forest-dependent communities

anyway. I listened very carefully, wanting very much to hear a message of hope

from this government yesterday on how they're going to resolve this softwood

lumber, and, frankly, I heard nothing. I heard that a summit is going to be

held. Well, a summit is a good idea only if a summit carries strategies with it

that can help communities now — can help communities, can help the workers in

those communities and, most importantly, their families. Instead, we're here

debating a bill that denies that support for forest-dependent communities.

It's the

same for the Fisheries Renewal Act. Fisheries Renewal B.C. is a very, very

successful, acclaimed, non-controversial program, and yet this government puts

an end to that. Fisheries Renewal B.C. was useful in terms of bridging those

communities where our forests came right up to the edge of habitat and ensuring

that our streams and rivers were enhanced, not hurt, by forestry operations. All

of that now, of course, is gone. The program was completely community-based —

sometimes volunteer, certainly supported by community organizations and clubs.

Fisheries Renewal was supported in terms of its volunteer contribution. All of

that's gone now, and forest-dependent, resource-dependent communities are at

greater risk.

It's

interesting. I'm surprised, frankly, at the industry. Why hasn't the industry

said: "Hey, wait a minute. That money that was in Forest Renewal B.C. —

why is it not being used for our sector now? Why is it, Mr. Premier, Mr.

Minister of Forests, that we have fewer resources available to help our

forest-dependent communities now than we did a year ago?" They're not

asking those questions. I'm not quite sure why, because I know that the forest

sector is very good at getting their due, getting their value out of government.

Yet they're silent on this issue. It's curious to me.

The

Coalition of B.C. Businesses is here today, all of whom — let me just be clear

on this — I have a great deal of respect for. But they sit here as a

government makes huge cuts to the very resource that earlier on it said was so

crucial to us that it was willing to raise the rhetoric against the United

States to a shrill hysteria. Yet what they could do in their own communities —

literally in their own back yards — they not only refuse to do, but they've

made massive cuts to. That's true of Fisheries Renewal B.C. and Forest Renewal

B.C. as well.

[1450]

This

government's solution is to be thoughtless. They operate by a principle of

throwing the baby out with the bathwater unless, of course, it's to pay for some

sort of corporate contribution earlier on. Although, I must admit that I'm not

even sure why that's happened here, because the forest companies have been very

generous in political contributions to this government.

[ Page 2132 ]

It is

exactly the kind of programs that FRBC operated and supported with their own

revenue source through superstumpage that could assist communities right now, as

we speak. Frankly, the other programs that help communities in transition have

been cut as well — cut substantially. I'm not referring to the fund that has

been inactive for several years. I'm referring specifically to the

community-based programs that assisted natural resource–dependent communities

in their times like this.

I think it

is ironic that this government chooses this day to debate Bill 2. I actually

look forward to the same members who sat here and stood up just a few moments

earlier and said how awful the softwood lumber dispute is and defined the

Americans as the enemy standing up and questioning why, at a time like this, the

B.C. Liberal government, who has an opportunity to support these communities, is

choosing not to do so.

We are in

very difficult times in our resource sector and our resource-dependent

communities. They will be strong. They will survive this terrible challenge that

we're facing in terms of the softwood lumber dispute and the failed negotiations

with the United States, but in the meantime families are hurting. Families need

support right now, as we speak, to assist them through a time when we will meet

with success in resolving this softwood lumber dispute, but that time is not

immediate. That time is months down the road. I'm hopeful that we can actually

have a negotiating strategy that works before the second week in May, but until

that time communities need assistance.

The passing

of Bill 2 does exactly the opposite of giving assistance to communities. It

denies them that assistance, and I think it's a very, very sad day. My colleague

and I will be at committee stage exploring these issues thoroughly. At that time

we will be registering through voting no on specific parts of Bill 2 at

committee stage.

Hon. G.

Collins: I found the exuberance of the comments by the member of the

opposition interesting, given that the issues she talked about — the windup of

the Forest Renewal and Fisheries Renewal B.C. Crown corporations — were

announced, I believe, in the fall at open cabinet as part of government's

restructuring of these issues and programs. As well, this bill was introduced on

budget day on February 19. I don't recall there being any comment by the Leader

of the Opposition on that day with regard to this issue, nor do I recall there

being any comment with regard to the issue she just spoke about back in the fall

in open cabinet.

[1455]

I suppose I

can draw the conclusion that the reason for her response today is her desire to

try to use as a springboard the difficulty that communities around British

Columbia are facing as a result of the softwood lumber dispute. She made

reference to it a couple of times. I can only assume that that's her desire —

to try to gain some sort of attention or coverage on an issue that, I think, has

put a lot of people in great difficulty.

I want to

take just a moment to talk a little bit in response to what the member said,

because she made repeated references to the failed strategy of this government,

the failed position of the federal and provincial governments in attempting to

negotiate a softwood lumber settlement. I want to remind that member that when

her government was in power and this party was in opposition, the critics for

forestry worked extremely closely with the Ministers of Forests from the

previous administration in an attempt to make sure that all opinions, advice and

suggestions were taken to heart and included. I know that the current Minister

of Forests has extended, I don't know how many times across the floor in this

House, the willingness to have input from the now-members of the opposition but

also to make sure that British Columbia spoke with one voice.

We've

certainly heard from the Minister of Forests over the last number of days and

the Premier, as well, on how what was a very fractured industry position in

British Columbia — which was a very fractured national position on softwood

lumber with each province or groups of provinces taking different positions —

came together first of all here in British Columbia, I think, with the

leadership of the Minister of Forests, the Premier, the unions, the IWA, as well

as the corporations and businesses in the forest sector, to sort out their

differences and say: "Here is our position as a province. This is the

position we're going to take." Then they built on that. British Columbia is

over half of the softwood lumber industry in the country. Half of the softwood

lumber exports to the U.S. come from B.C. To take that leadership role and that

sense of unity we've developed here in British Columbia and build on top of that

by getting the other provinces on board, raising the level of this issue in

Ottawa and in Washington, D.C., and getting the federal government to really pay

attention to this as an issue and put the Minister of International Trade on it

in a much more comprehensive, time-consuming way….

The

strategy that we have tried to follow is one of bringing people together and

getting people to work on the same page and the same song sheet and try and show

some unity, because we are facing some very onerous opponents. The United States

is a very powerful country, a very wealthy country. Clearly, for some reason,

which I know that the Premier and the Minister of Forests have talked about at

length — namely, the political issues down in the United States…. The member

for North Island in his private member's statement at the beginning of this

afternoon's proceedings made reference to the comments of President Bush and the

conflict, the juxtaposition, between his position in Indonesia and his position

with Canada. Both countries are supporting the United States and their war on

terrorism in an active way. Yet, one country is rewarded with a freeing-up of

lumber tariffs into the United States, that being Indonesia, and the other

country, Canada, is being penalized with an extremely onerous — unnecessarily

and unfairly onerous — softwood lumber tariff.

[ Page 2133 ]

There is a

real problem with that. It's a country that I think has lost its way on this

file, anyway, or has subjected itself to really crass internal politics. I think

the fact, though, that we've been working united has at least helped to present

that case as well as we possibly can, to make sure we have the support of the

federal government and the other ten provinces, and to get our message across.

You know,

I'm a little disturbed by the behaviour and the actions of the Leader of the

Opposition, the member for Vancouver-Hastings, over these last few months. I

recall in question period her repeatedly rising and challenging and asking

questions — that any reading and any understanding of the industry and what

the softwood lumber issue was about would understand that the questions were

extremely ill-informed, strategically unwise and, I thought, posturing. Yet, she

continued to do that in the House and asked those questions of the minister. I

recall the Minister of Forests offering to brief the member opposite, to bring

her in and be part of this united team. I can only take from her actions and

comments today that she hasn't been part of that team and that she continues not

to be part of that team. I think that's unfortunate. I know this government

still extends the olive branch or the hand, if you will, asking that all members

of all political parties and all British Columbians as a whole would be part of

trying to present a united front as opposed to one that is all over the map and

divisive.

I know that

in the previous administration, the critics from the then opposition held joint

meetings, joint press conferences. Public statements were made by the critic and

the minister at the same time to try and show that we had a united position. I

think that would be a wise position for the member opposite to try and be part

of now, as opposed to trying to score some very unfortunate political points at

a time when we're all struggling to deal with and solve this problem. I'll leave

that there and have her deal with that as she will in the next few days.

[1500]

Mr.

Speaker, I also have to deal with some of her comments around Forest Renewal

B.C. and worker transition funding and dealing with it. It's a little hard to

take, I have to tell you. I've been here for ten years. I was here at the

creation of FRBC and the Forest Practices Code. I saw, along with every other

member, the damage that was done by the public policy decisions of the previous

administration to the resource sector broadly but the forest sector in

particular.

There was

the Forest Practices Code that the NDP's own Minister of Forests said, after a

couple of years of reviewing it, had added over a billion dollars of incremental

costs with no environmental or industry benefit as a result. There were more

costs than that, but there was at least a billion dollars where there was no

benefit. What it does is erode the capital base. It erodes the ability of

businesses to invest in new equipment. It erodes the ability of businesses to

deal with downturns like this. The impact flows directly to the workers, the

people who are employed by the companies.

That

billion dollars that should have been there for these businesses to provide for

new technology, worker training, sustaining the slow periods and keeping their

workforce employed, is gone for no benefit — no economic benefit and no

environmental benefit. That's a little hard to take because that billion dollars

would be there now, providing opportunities for that industry to withstand this

battle.

The second

issue I want to deal with very briefly is the member's comments on Forest

Renewal B.C. It goes back to '95-96 and even beyond that. The previous

government used Forest Renewal B.C. — a potential raid on the Forest Renewal

B.C. funds — as their justification for telling British Columbians the budget

was balanced in '95 and '96 when they knew it wasn't.

The Premier

of the day assured the then Minister of Finance that she could dip into that

fund if she needed to balance the budget. I remember Harry Lali, the member for

Yale-Lillooet, standing up in this House when Forest Renewal B.C. was introduced

as a bill, saying they were going to set up this fund — I can't remember

exactly; I'll paraphrase somewhat — and that no greedy politician was ever

going to stick their sticky fingers in this pocket and take that money out. You

know, while he was saying that, one of their ministers was sticking their hand

in that pocket.

The only

reason they didn't raid that fund is because the opposition of the day, our

party, stood up day after day after day and made them live up to the promise

they made to the people of this province whose money that was. That was a big

battle at that time. For the member opposite to forget that and somehow make the

comments she made today is a little hypocritical at the least.

I want to

talk a little bit about that Forest Renewal B.C. fund and the way the NDP

managed it — forget the philosophy and the principle. I can't remember what

the number was from the auditor general. I think it was almost a billion dollars

spent in the Forest Renewal B.C. fund with no business plan. They didn't have a

clue where the money was going, how it was being spent, what it was being used

for, what the goals were, what it was trying to achieve. There was no plan. The

money was thrown out the door and used up for things that in retrospect perhaps

could have been used for different things.

The fact

that there was no planning done at all indicates again, I think, how difficult

it's been to work in that industry in this province for the last decade. That

was money that came out of communities. It came out of the forest sector. The

provincial government created a little Crown corporation and said: "Go

spend it." They spent it all over the place, doing all sorts of things with

no plan.

The other

thing and the last thing I want to talk about in that regard, in response to the

member, are her comments about how this impacts workers and families. She talked

about how the government doesn't have any plans, etc. I think she's just clearly

wrong. There are other adjustment mechanisms that are in place and have been in

place for a number of years,

[ Page 2134 ]

which are used and have been used for a number of years both by the previous

administration and by this one to deal with those types of adjustments.

This fund

that the member was talking about is no longer required, given the new systems

in place and the way that has evolved. But I want to spend a moment talking a

little bit about the forest worker transition fund. I see my colleague who is

the member for Shuswap and was the critic for Forests for the previous

opposition. I saw his eyes light up. He'll remember this issue very well.

[1505]

The

previous government had this forest worker transition fund that was designed to

help workers' transition in the forest sector as a result of some of the policy

decisions the previous government had made. They paid these funds to these

workers. They told the workers that the funds were tax-free and that they didn't

have to pay income tax on them, when they didn't know that for sure.

In fact,

there was ongoing dialogue back and forth with the federal government. The

federal government was saying, "Sorry, this is income, and this is

taxable," and the provincial government was saying, "No, it

isn't," and telling those workers it wasn't. The workers went out and made

plans for their family, for retraining and for their lives to transition to a

different occupation or whatever, only to find out after the fact that the

federal government was coming back to them for the income tax.

The

provincial government, as a result, was getting the income tax as well, and they

had told them it wasn't going to happen. We as government promised to live up to

the spirit of the agreement the previous government made with those workers and

to the commitments the previous government had made. As a result, our government

is sending out between $25 million and $30 million in payments to those workers

who were deliberately misled by the previous administration into believing one

thing when the government knew it wasn't true.

We're

living up to that. We're putting the money back into the pockets of those

workers and compensating them for that. It was a decision made by the previous

government, and it was something those workers shouldn't have to bear the brunt

of. We're fixing it. We're delivering on it. The ombudsman told the previous

government and this government that it needed to be done. We're living up to it.

We're making sure it happens.

It's easy

to stand up, as that member did, and score today's headline political point out

of an issue like this, but I think she should keep the history in context. She

should keep her record in context, and she should question why it was that

forest workers resoundingly voted against the previous administration when they

had their chance in the last election.

They didn't

do it for no reason. They did it because of the way that administration treated

them, because of what the administration did to the forest industry and

forest-dependent communities across British Columbia. I think it's a little

sanctimonious for the member to stand up and say the types of things she did

today and pretend to be standing up and defending forest workers and

forest-dependent families in this province. When she was in government, she did

exactly the opposite.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Collins: I move that the bill be referred to the committee for discussion or

debate at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 2,

Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2002, read a second time and referred to a

Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Hon. G.

Collins: I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we'll

be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's

Services.

Committee of Supply

The House

in Committee of Supply B; H. Long in the chair.

The

committee met at 3:08 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

COMMUNITY, ABORIGINAL

AND WOMEN'S SERVICES

(continued)

On vote 19:

ministry operations: $535,278,000 (continued).

MacPhail: I had said to the minister responsible for the community charter

that we would go to broader powers. The first one I have, and I'm working from

the community charter discussion paper, says the community charter proposes that

municipalities be granted the powers of a natural person of full capacity. Could

the minister explain what effect that will have for the ordinary person in

British Columbia?

[1510]

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: In response to the question, I'm going to be a little bit careful

about detail obviously. Let's put it this way: the broader powers will be part

of the package we will introduce into the House in the form of a White Paper and

a draft.

The natural

person powers are maybe easiest described as the powers that any citizen would

have. It means that current municipalities, as corporations, are provided with

broadly worded corporate powers. Included in these powers is making agreements.

They provide assistance; acquire, hold, manage and dispose of property. They can

delegate powers. They can incorporate corporations and establish commissions.

[ Page 2135 ]

To add onto

that, it is not a thing that the community at large should worry about as far as

giving more jurisdiction to local governments than is normally given under the

other broader powers. It's technical, and in order to give a clear framework, I

really have to wait until it is in the legislation. The elements of the power as

I just described them are certainly part of natural person powers. As an overall

principle these powers are, for local governments, the empowerment to act as a

natural person.

MacPhail: I understand that this will unfold with the White Paper. The

reason I was asking that question — perhaps I should have put the two of these

together….

I preface

this by saying that I'm not a lawyer, and I don't think that the minister is

either, so we don't have to worry about the fact that we should know what we're

talking about. This is a quote from the paper: "Natural person powers do

not confer or expand any regulatory or taxing powers, since natural persons

don't have any such authority." I'm curious to know: is that

part

completely separate for discussion from the discussion about changes in taxation

authorities for communities?

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: They will indeed be separate parts in the legislation that we

will bring to the House.

Just to

give a bit better framework or body to the natural person power. The member

already recognizes I'm not a lawyer, but I do understand what the natural person

power will do for local communities. It gives them the capacity and rights,

powers and privileges of a normal person, as I already said. Municipalities, for

example, can with these powers enter into agreements, acquire properties and

provide assistance unless these elements are specifically restricted in other

areas.

[1515]

MacPhail: Again, this is under "Broader Powers." All of these

questions are, I think. Yes, they are. The discussion paper then states that the

community charter will transfer the soil and freehold title to all roads within

municipalities from the province to municipalities. Let me ask the minister what

flows from that. For instance, maintenance responsibility — is there a change

in that area as a result of that, and is there any transfer of funding that goes

along with that?

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: To deal with that question, again, is quite complicated. The best

way to put it is to say that municipal roads or municipal highways today are

still owned by the provincial government. Today, if a municipality seeks closure

of a road, they have to go through a fairly lengthy and quite cumbersome process

to get that road closure. By transferring title on these local or municipal

highways from the provincial government to local government, it will make it

much easier to deal with a road closure, if the municipality indeed has the need

for it for whatever reason. This has nothing to do with maintenance.

Municipalities are responsible today for maintenance of their municipal road

infrastructure. That will remain the same.

MacPhail: A couple of points around the broader powers. I notice that the

discussion paper uses language that includes mayors and councillors. But there

are other local government leaders, such as electoral area directors, and the

other one that I'm familiar with is improvement district directors. Is it for

simplicity that those terms are used? Do those terms encompass all other locally

elected government leaders as well?

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: No. As I explained this morning, phase 1 of the community charter

structure within local governments is focused on municipalities. When we get to

the rural areas, it will be part of the regional district overview and the

creation of a charter for regional districts. At that time we will deal with

these other elements of local jurisdiction and elected bodies.

MacPhail: Okay. Sorry, I had missed that this morning — my apologies.

Let me just

ask a question on that, then. Has the minister received any feedback that there

are issues that cannot be resolved in phase 1 because phase 2 is going to occur?

I don't know the answer to that question, but are there implementation issues

that arise with having two phases?

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: One of the issues that will develop is that local governments

will work and be directed by community charter. At the same time, on a regional

level, the sections that pertain to regional districts in the Local Government

Act will still be in effect. We recognize that in certain areas a harmonization

of these two different forms of local government has to happen in order to make

the process fluent on a regional level.

We are

working on a number of issues to coincide with the introduction of the charter

bill to deal with these issues as well, where there could be a conflict of

operation or a conflict of authority. If we do not watch carefully, a municipal

councillor who sits on a regional board would be working with two different sets

of rules, which could create problems. So we're aware of it. We are identifying

the areas where these conflicts could happen, and we will take steps to

harmonize as much as we can so as to avoid elected officials being in a

compromising position of having to serve on a regional board with one set of

rules and on a local level with another set of rules.

MacPhail: Have local governments put forward any requirement or any

proposals that there may be a need for transitional funding as they move from

the Local Government Act to the community charter?

[1520]

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: That's an excellent question and not surprising — I wouldn't

say surprising. During the consultation period that we had in the regions with

[ Page 2136 ]

local government representatives, the thing they were most concerned about

was the transition period and learning to work with the new tools, especially in

the smaller communities. It may create a need to consult with municipal lawyers:

"How would we do this? How do we interpret that? How are we going to do

things differently now with the charter than we used to with the Local

Government Act?"

For that

transition concern that has been expressed, we have indicated to these local

governments that once the charter is introduced as a bill, we will set up a

transition team that local governments can contact. This transition team will be

made up of people working in the system today who know the Local Government Act

and the charter, and will assist in getting the answers so that smaller

communities, like larger communities, can effectively use the new tools of the

community charter.

MacPhail: Just a follow-up to that question, then. Has there been some

discussion about the fact that different local governments have different levels

of capacity to act as a new order of government? Is that an issue to be managed

for transition, or will the charter actually give recognition that there are

different levels of capacity?

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: There are two components to the charter. If we take the Local

Government Act as it stands today…. We have taken that act and have looked at

how many of the sections in there are needed and are prescriptive. In going

through that process, we have eliminated many of the parts that we feel, by

empowering local governments, are no longer necessary. As a consequence of that,

local governments, be they small or large, will have a document, a tool, to work

with that is not only less detailed but clearer in its prescription, clearer in

explaining, "This is your power; deal with it," without going into

pages and pages of explaining point by point. That's one part.

The second

part is that there is going to be a basket of tools for local governments to

look at, be it in the financial area or in the area of creating partnerships

with the private sector — tools for working together with other councillors or

councils in the same area to harmonize some of the functions that local

governments are involved with. Often, each local government has its own

infrastructure for building inspections and these kinds of things.

They can

look at this basket of tools and decide what would work for them. This is

enabling. There's nothing that mandates them to take all the components. Smaller

communities will maybe use fewer of these enabling tools than larger

communities, but at the end of the day smaller communities…. The member

opposite had concerns about how they could use this new way of doing business.

Smaller communities can not only choose when they want to tap into these

opportunities and enabling elements, but they can do it at a time when they feel

confident they can handle it and deal with the questions that would otherwise

arise.

MacPhail: I have a few miscellaneous questions, and then that will be it.

I assume,

from the answer the minister gave this morning about declaration of financial

contributions during an election, that the system for fixed election dates will

remain, that it will not be changed.

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: We have not made any changes to the municipal election act as

part of the Local Government Act, as I explained to the member this morning.

MacPhail: Is there any change in…? Will the charter affect in any way the

ability of two levels of government to sue each other?

[1525]

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: None whatsoever. What we hope to see happen is that with the

charter, within its whole framework and the way it operates, there will be less

need for communities to go after each other. Because of the natural person

powers, the charter will allow local governments to find ways of partnership. I

hope the climate amongst local governments in British Columbia can only get

better because of the charter approach we are giving them.

MacPhail: One of the areas where the charter is moving is to give local

governments more autonomy than they previously enjoyed. I'm wondering how that

will impact on the agreement on internal trade regulations, particularly as it

relates to the MASH sector, I think it's called now. It was MUSH when I was

younger. This involves municipalities, academic institutions, schools, social

service agencies and health. Anyway, it includes municipalities.

Will the

charter conferring greater autonomy on local governments give them any greater

autonomy on whether to comply with the agreement on internal trade and those

regulations arising, as they relate to the MASH sector?

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: As far as I can see, there will be no impact on the MASH

agreement because of the charter. One commitment made in the charter principles

is that if changes would impact local government in relationship to other forms

of government, these changes would always be made after a comprehensive

consultation with the representatives of local governments.

At this

point I can't see anything in the charter that would have an impact on the trade

issue. If there were changes in the future, they would happen only after the

principle that full consultation with local government would take place on

government-intergovernmental relationships.

MacPhail: My final question arises out of the service plan. Page 8 commits

the government to ensure that communities have safe drinking water and appro-

[ Page 2137 ]

priate sewage treatment. What actions is the minister taking to realize this

goal?

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: In the past the members opposite have expressed their concern

about water quality, including the period where we have seen serious discussions

in all provinces because of what happened in Ontario with the quality of water

and its impact on people. As government today, we are as committed as we were in

opposition that funding coming from the infrastructure program between the

provincial, municipal and local governments will be focused primarily on green

projects — that is, heavily on the water and sewer issues. We are committed to

it, and we will continue to commit to that today.

The other

thing is that under the charter, the ability of local governments to get into

partnership with the private sector to provide these services will be

considerably enhanced over the rules and regulations that now pertain to the P3

programs.

As far as

the infrastructure funding programs are concerned, we're very much committed to

the green side of projects. The public-private partnership potential for local

governments to tap into will also be enhanced and less problematic to achieve.

That can clearly assist communities to get involved in these very much needed

infrastructure upgrades.

I suppose

that's what the member opposite wanted to hear. She wanted to know what we're

doing in the context of the charter, and these are two examples.

MacPhail: Can the minister tell me what ministry is primarily responsible

for drinking water protection?

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: That's the Ministry of Health Services.

[1530]

MacPhail: In an area that has arisen since the community charter

discussions, there have been some proposals put forward that local governments

should now have responsibility for liquor law enforcement, as I understand it,

or — I'm sorry, not liquor law enforcement; the minister is quite correct in

terms of shaking his head no — in terms of through a business plan–business

licensing model approving licensing for establishments who serve alcohol.

Was any of

this discussed, or is there going to be a discussion in the community charter

about how this unfolds? Let me put my full range of issues here for the

minister. This is very much an issue as far as I can tell, both as a person who

took a keen interest in updating our liquor laws and one who uses those liquor

laws as well.

In a city

like mine, one can live on Boundary Road and have establishments kitty-corner

from each other serving alcohol, serving food, and being in different

municipalities. There are lots of corners in the lower mainland like that and

here in Victoria, as well, with our 13 municipalities. That's a real issue,

because if autonomy is used in a way which is an objective of the community

charter, autonomy may be used in a way that interferes with one business merely

because they're on the other side of the line for a local jurisdiction.

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: I can respond to this particular question, although it is not in

my jurisdiction or in the charter. It is with the Solicitor General. During the

consultation meetings in the province, including here and the greater Vancouver

area, that question came up quite a few times: "How much more control are

we going to get about the establishment of new liquor-providing

businesses?" It is not part of the charter, because it is in another

minister's jurisdiction.

What I can

say is that I believe that the Solicitor General, in my discussions with him on

the subject, understands that local governments must have a strong say in the

application and the approval of new licences. I think he will recognize that

through the steps he is taking right now, dealing with liquor licences. I have

been able to give a message to the Solicitor General in that regard on the

desire to have a real good, meaningful say in the applications. It's up to the

Solicitor General to react to that in his bill, of course. I have good hopes

that he recognizes that local governments must have a say.

At the end

of the day it has to be somehow the liquor control branch that makes the final

decision to make sure we don't have one town with 12 or 20 facilities on one

street and the town on the other side with nothing. I think that's how it will

be done.

MacPhail: Well, those points are exactly appropriate to make. In fact, I

just want to go on record here saying that I support the changes — no buts. I

supported the changes. In fact, I introduced many of the changes when I was in

some capacity in the previous government — I think it was Minister of Finance.

What happened, and I put this as a cautionary note to this particular minister,

is that bureaucracy overtook us in terms of making the changes. I think it

actually is the one time I would have to say that the bureaucracy overwhelmed me

and I was extremely disappointed in the bureaucracy's ability to actually make

change. I think it's the only time.

[1535]

I say this

with deference: I think it's because the bureaucracy didn't agree with the

changes. I tried to figure out every other way to explain it, but I think that's

what it was. It could have been that there may have been some political masters

that didn't agree with it as well. Nevertheless, they were passed.

Here's the

problem I see — and it's specific to this minister because of the new-era

commitment to not download — and that is that if indeed we want this system to

work and give a greater role to municipalities to approve a business plan that

incorporates liquor licensing in it, then municipalities need the resources.

I talked to

some business people about this matter, who were receiving the changes with

great hope. Then the next question they had was: "Well, gee, in my city it

[ Page 2138 ]

now takes me so many months" — and those months were greater than a

year — "to get my business plan approved by my municipality. If it's now

contingent upon proper review of liquor licensing, how much longer is it going

to take?" The changes from provincial responsibility to greater municipal

responsibility…. We have to be very careful to watch that this isn't a

downloading without proper resources.

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: First of all, I do not consider this a downloading. If a local

government decides that it wants to have input on the establishment of a liquor

distribution type of business — be it a restaurant, a bar, a pub or a beer and

wine store — then that is their choice. It's not downloading. Downloading is

when you say you have to do this, and you have to spend the cost of fulfilling

that new responsibility that we give you.

What we are

saying is: "Here's a charter. Within the charter we will give you certain

powers." On the other hand, other ministries will do things, and these

other ministries are recognizing that local governments indeed have more power,

so they respect that, and by saying to local government: "If you want to

have a say on how this liquor licence application is going to be dealt with,

please do so."

We have had

referrals in the past when it came to pub applications. We have had referrals in

other areas, be it in the extraction of gravel or of soil. I remember when I was

the mayor of Whistler, on a regular basis we had applications that came to Crown

corporations and then were referred to the municipal council for comment.

Basically, what we were given was 30 days to respond. I think that is not unfair

to see as part of how the bureaucracy, be it at a local or a provincial level,

can deal with it, so I don't have that concern.

I would

certainly not consider it off-loading, because if local government doesn't want

to do it, that's fine too. Then the liquor control branch will make the

decision, but most communities want to have a say in it just to make sure that

whatever is being recommended as a new project fits within the community

structure and the community objectives. I think they will look at it that way.

As far as a

time delay, which was the concern expressed, I hope to see that with the new

charter and less restrictive requirements than the old Local Government Act had

put on local government, on issues like that local governments can react quite

fast and in an acceptable time frame.

MacPhail: Thanks to the minister. I'm finished on the community charter

issues. Thanks very much.

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: We didn't talk about two portions of my responsibility. This

morning we talked about the 2010 bid and as the member opposite expressed

strongly this morning that she is (

a) supportive and (

b) interested in being

kept in the loop, I offer that any time you have questions, contact me. We will

meet, and we will discuss it. I think it is indeed very important that we as the

Legislature as a whole are behind this bid in order to get the very best result

out of our endeavour. That very best result, of course, is being nominated as

the designated site at next year's meeting in Prague.

[1540]

On the

community charter, it is a very bold initiative we have taken. When the member

opposite sees the draft that will go public very soon, she will recognize that

it really is a new way of having a relationship between local government and the

provincial government.

I want to

say one thing. It was triggered by the statement on the member's last question

on the liquor control aspect and how the member opposite was really frustrated

by the bureaucracy somehow hijacking what she wanted to achieve with the changes

in the liquor licensing legislation.

We started

the exercise of creating this draft in September of last year. Obviously, the

bureaucracy that's in place, the different people working within Municipal

Affairs, as it was known — it's now CAWS — had just finished a three-year

process of creating the Local Government Act. My greatest satisfaction of all is

not only that we have a great charter but that these bureaucrats, if you want to

call them that…. I don't like that word. One day we have to find another.

An Hon.

Member: Public servants.

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: The public servants — that's better.

They

understood what we wanted to do. They understood that with their full

participation, we could indeed do something different. The last seven months

have been remarkable. There have been times when I had to ask a whole team to

work during the weekend. There have been many nights when I had to ask them to

stay on and work through some of the issues we had to deal with.

Never, ever

was there anyone who said: "Do we really have to do this?" I want to

take this opportunity to thank each and every civil servant who has been part of

creating this charter, who has been part of the team that has travelled the

province, who has been part of the team that has listened to local governments

throughout British Columbia. As I said this morning, we met with about 800

different officials.

I want to

say thank you to them. They have worked so hard, and this charter is theirs.

It's not just the government's. It's theirs because they bought into the new way

of creating the relationship between local and provincial governments. They have

delivered, in my opinion, beyond expectations.

That's how

I want to close. I thank the member for the questions, and I'm done.

Interjection.

The

Chair: The committee will be recessed for two minutes.

[ Page 2139 ]

The

committee recessed from 3:43 p.m. to 3:44 p.m.

[H. Long in the chair.]

MacPhail: We're moving now into aboriginal programs under the Ministry of

Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services. We're moving into the aboriginal

programs

section of this ministry.

[1545]

The New

Era document states that a Liberal government would "create a permanent

first citizens forum that will provide aboriginal citizens living on and off

reserves a direct means to communicate with the government about their

priorities and ideas to materially improve their quality of life today."

What is the

status of the first citizens forum?

Hon. G.

Abbott: The first citizens forum concept has been in development for some

time. We want to develop better and stronger ways of communicating between

government and first nations in the province. Probably in October we will have

the first of the first citizens forums, likely at the Wosk Centre in Vancouver.

Some of the details around that are still to be ironed out.

MacPhail: What is the role and structure of the aboriginal directorate? My

supplementary question to that is: how does the aboriginal directorate

interrelate with the first citizens forum?

Hon. G.

Abbott: There are 11 FTEs or public servants in the aboriginal directorate.

I'll just briefly quote from the context for the aboriginal directorate:

"The directorate provides leadership in developing sound government policy

and works to increase participation of aboriginal people and communities in the

life and economy of B.C. The directorate works collaboratively with provincial

ministries, aboriginal organizations and the federal government to promote

culturally responsive, coordinated and effective programs and services for

B.C.'s aboriginal people."

In terms of

the directorate, two of the members of that directorate have been actively

engaged around preparations for the first citizens forum.

MacPhail: What's the distinction? Is the first citizens forum a one-shot

affair annually, or does the first citizens forum inform the work of the

aboriginal directorate, or vice versa?

Hon. G.

Abbott: The latter is correct. The first citizens forum will be an annual

opportunity for aboriginal people to give us a sense of their expectations from

the provincial government. It will be an annual accountability of the

government's success in achieving its goals in relation to aboriginal programs

and aboriginal services. In short, it will be a kind of report card and an

opportunity, obviously, to meet and share new ideas as well. That will be the

annual occasion to look at how we're doing.

MacPhail: What are the impediments the minister is running into, for it to

take at least another six months to have the first, first citizens forum?

Hon. G.

Abbott: There are no particular impediments. We just believe this is going

to be a very important event both for aboriginal communities and for the

government of British Columbia. Particularly because it's the first, we want to

ensure it is very well planned and well coordinated. Through the aboriginal

directorate, we have been working with aboriginal communities to ensure they

have full input around the content of and agenda for the forum and obviously to

ensure they feel satisfied that the very many different first nations in British

Columbia are represented there.

[1550]

MacPhail: It would be my view that now is the time to speed up the first

citizens forum for this reason. There are great changes taking place out there

through changed funding, decreased funding and cuts to programs that directly

affect aboriginal communities — off-reserve, I'm well aware of, and even some

programs on reserve.

In addition

to the annual first citizens forum, are there any other avenues, either through

programs or through funding, the minister is directing toward resolving the

issues that are confronting off-reserve aboriginal peoples either at the

provincial, regional or local agencies? What programs, what services exist now

that are working until we actually have this, I guess, debate at the first

citizens forum?

Hon. G.

Abbott: Certainly, while I won't suggest anything else, aboriginal people

may be affected in some measure by expenditure reductions in a range of

ministries. In the case of this particular ministry, the budget expenditure line

has actually gone up. There are a range of ways in which we are attempting to

strengthen aboriginal communities and our relationship with aboriginal

communities. For example, we have committed to doubling the First Citizens Fund

over four years from $36 million to $72 million. Certainly, in the cultural,

educational and business areas, the First Citizens Fund is a way for us to

assist aboriginal communities in their work there.

Additionally,

we have strengthened our funding for the first citizens heritage, language and

culture program. I think that's an important initiative as well. There are

certainly others which I'm happy to follow up on as well.

MacPhail: The areas that have been affected by cuts, I'm sure the minister

is well aware, are direct social service deliveries to off-reserve aboriginal

children and families. I don't think it will work…. Actually, we have people

present today from the aboriginal friendship centres. It won't work to say:

"Oh, it's not my responsibility. It's somebody else's responsibility."

Here's

what's happening; here's why I'm curious as to when the first citizens forum is

going to take place.

[ Page 2140 ]

There's huge change taking place in Health Services and services to Children

and Families that affect directly aboriginal people and aboriginal control over

those services. On the one hand the Health Services ministry is eliminating

completely the Aboriginal Health Council. All of those programs are being

shipped out to the health authorities. Basically, first nations communities,

aboriginal communities, are having to start from square one again about getting

control, again, of their programs that they deliver directly.

On the

other hand, the Ministry of Children and Family Development is going to

aboriginal communities and saying: "Hey, we want to have a regional health

model where we want aboriginal service councils in place." I met with a

group of aboriginal social service program people just last week during the week

away from here, and they're completely confused. On the one hand the government

is saying, "No, we no longer need your services," and another area of

government is saying: "Yes, we do need your services." They have grave

concerns about both aspects of this. A first citizens forum would, I truly

believe, help to bridge the one hand not knowing what the other hand is doing as

it relates specifically to first nations aboriginal programs. Is this an agenda

item that the minister is considering for the first nations forum?

[1555]

Hon. G.

Abbott: The agenda is still under discussion, but certainly one of the areas

which I would suspect we will be talking about at the first citizens forum,

because I know there is some interest among first nations around it, is

aboriginal health issues. I know that's front and centre on a number of fronts

for aboriginal communities. One of the things I have heard in various meetings

that I have had with aboriginal organizations is that that is a very important

issue for them. So it would not surprise me, though we're still consulting with

respect to the agenda, if that were to be among the issues.

I do also

want to say that I've had the opportunity to meet frequently with aboriginal

organizations in the province, including the aboriginal friendship centres. We

as a ministry assist to the tune of about $600,000 a year, I think, in the

operation of the centres. We have developed some very strong relationships with

aboriginal organizations over the past several months. That's not to say that

they agree with everything the government proposes to do, but we have certainly

set up a lot of lines of dialogue with first nations. There are a lot of issues

to work through. We look forward to continuing that.

MacPhail: We can go through some of those issues right now, because we're on

the verge of entering the second fiscal year of this government, and these

issues are mounting in terms of their need to be resolved. This is the forum in

which we need to discuss them.

I want to

ask the minister what steps he's taking to support building the necessary

aboriginal government structures, particularly off reserve, to ensure that the

further devolution to aboriginal agencies is not a trap for failure.

Let me tell

you why I'm asking this question. It's because there have been times in other

jurisdictions where there have been political arrangements between the

government of the day and perhaps political organizations in the aboriginal

community who are not responsible for delivering services — nor should they be

responsible for delivering services. Those political organizations are asked to

actually deliver on-the-ground services. There's no governance structure, other

than the political organization, through which to deliver those services.

Therefore, the devolution of responsibility for a social service program to a

political organization has met with failure.

I know that

the aboriginal friendship centres want to avoid that at all costs. Aboriginal

women's services organizations want to. Well, basically every aboriginal social

service agency that I've met with wants to avoid that trap. What is the minister

planning in terms of ensuring proper governance?

Hon. G.

Abbott: I think the concern that the hon. member has expressed is a

legitimate one. Both the provincial government and the aboriginal communities

have to be cognizant of building capacity as we move forward on a range of

issues. I think the member is right that to attempt to undertake a function

without having first built the capacity to effectively manage that function is a

legitimate concern.

For

example, I recently attended an urban aboriginal conference in Vancouver where

later in the agenda my colleague the Minister of Children and Family Development

was discussing some of the changes that are being contemplated by the ministry

and specifically trying to address the issue of building capacity so that the

legitimate aspiration of first nations to manage their child and family

development issues more directly can be achieved.

[1600]

MacPhail: That was exactly what I was talking about earlier, saying that the

aboriginal community is receiving mixed messages about governance and

responsibility for programs to their own constituents.

Let me give

a very practical example. On the one hand, the capacity for delivering health

programs is there through the aboriginal health councils. While it's only $10

million provincewide that the Aboriginal Health Council was responsible for,

they had dozens of — I think it was something like 220 — programs working

extremely successfully, delivered to aboriginal people mainly off-reserve but

certainly working closely with on-reserve programs. That's gone. Government has

said: "That governance structure is one that we don't want to have anymore

in the area of health."

Then the

same people got a phone call a couple of days later — it may have been a week

later — saying: "Hey, you know that aboriginal health council? That's the

model we want to replicate in the Ministry of Chil-

[ Page 2141 ]

dren and Family Development." At the same time the government is going

through another mechanism to aboriginal political organizations. They are

complete, legitimate, well run and have the capacity to be political

organizations, governing organizations, for aboriginal communities, but they

don't run social service programs. At the same time those organizations, on a

one-to-one basis, in some areas are being asked to deliver programs.

I am

informed…. Believe you me, it's only through information here. My own

community is made absolutely all the better for having, along with my colleague

from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, the largest off-reserve aboriginal population

in all of Canada. We are honoured to have that, but I'm speaking only through

information here on the effects of these changes to aboriginal governance.

There's incredible confusion out there, and at the end of this month it all

grinds to a halt. The funding stops for social service programs, and there's

literally no plan in place to carry on.

I was

searching desperately for an area in government where these contradictory

messages could be resolved. That's why, doing my homework, the first citizens

forum seemed to be the place. Does the minister agree?

Hon. G.

Abbott: I do think the first citizens forum will be a place where some of

those issues are discussed and, hopefully, over time resolved. Certainly, what

I've heard from first nations with respect to that is that those are the kinds

of issues they will want to bring forward for discussion at the first citizens

forum. It is an opportunity for first nations and aboriginal people to speak

directly and personally to members of the provincial cabinet, and hopefully we

will attain greater clarity in some of those public policy areas in an event

like the first citizens forum.

MacPhail: I urge the minister to move more expeditiously than the fall of

this year to have the first citizens forum, because the problems are arising

now. In fact, some of the problems arise literally at the end of this week. I

met with aboriginal health service delivery people who said: "As of March

31, we have no more funding. We've been told that maybe by June this matter will

be worked out." Well, these are addiction programs. They're natal,

prenatal, postnatal programs. They're housing programs. They're education

programs. They're programs that exist now and as of the end of this week will

not exist.

[1605]

Perhaps the

minister can help on this basis. What we know — and the government has made it

quite clear that they're fully cognizant of — is that the determinants of

health are completely negative for aboriginal and first nations people compared

to non-aboriginal people in British Columbia. What specific budget commitments

can the minister tell me about that are directed to mount cross-sector,

interministerial collaborations, specifically with off-reserve aboriginal

agencies that are now responsible for programs and services?

Hon. G.

Abbott: The government is certainly aware of the challenges the member has

outlined. We are in a dynamic time, certainly, in terms of the changes that have

been undertaken by the current government and also in terms of first nations

both on- and off-reserve looking in many ways to enhance their own management of

social services, and so on. It is a dynamic time.

We do have

a responsibility as a ministry to look at cross-ministry coordination. We accept

that challenge, and we know it's going to be a big undertaking, but we will

continue to work relentlessly on that. As part of that process we have just

completed an inventory of all provincial services to first nations both on- and

off-reserve, and we are developing a provincial strategy for social and economic

improvement for aboriginal people.

As well, in

terms of the specifics, there is a tripartite negotiation ongoing that involves

the province, the federal government and two aboriginal organizations, the

Aboriginal Peoples Council and the British Columbia Association of Aboriginal

Friendship Centres, as representatives of first nations in respect to those

issues. Given the divided jurisdiction around aboriginal affairs, we do have to

work with the federal government. That relationship has been a positive one.

To meet the

challenge I've set out, we actually have an improvement of $1.8 million in our

budget for the coming fiscal year to manage that challenge.

MacPhail: Again, I urge some expediency on that to the minister, because the

effects of lack of coordination are going to be felt at the end of this week.

For the

minister's information, I was informed that the Ministry of Children and Family

Development has extended the deadline for aboriginal service deliverers to

respond to the request for a governance model, but I think that's still looming

for June. There's a real urgency here to get some sort of interministerial

collaboration. I am informed at this point, and the minister doesn't dissuade me

of that, that it doesn't exist. In order to not have people fall through the

cracks because services have to end, I urge the minister to start that process

as quickly as possible.

The New

Era document also speaks of various programs and supports for aboriginal

people. I want to refer to that document and then ask the minister how his

government is responding.

[1610]

He has

already suggested that the first nations language fund has been increased. The

new-era commitment of increasing efforts to protect and promote aboriginal

languages is recognized through increased funding. What is the increased funding

being spent on?

Hon. G.

Abbott: I thank the member for her question. The budget increase for the

language program is from $750,000 to $1 million. I'll take a moment and just

give a brief outline of how the language program is

[ Page 2142 ]

developing. It is quite a remarkable project, I must say. I've now had the

opportunity to meet with the advisory council and some of the folks who are

working on the project, and it is quite amazing. I'm sure the member might be

interested at some point in visiting their offices at Bastion Square. She'd get

a firsthand sense of what the project is doing.

As a

non-computer-literate guy, I probably won't do justice in this description, but

what they are essentially doing is attempting to develop a dictionary on

computer, which would ensure that all of the various aboriginal languages that

exist in British Columbia would be effectively captured by the computer program.

I think they are working with Hewlett-Packard on the corporate side. It's kind

of a P3 model that they're using — the corporate sector, including

Hewlett-Packard. I don't want to be unfair to those who may also be

contributing, but I know they're using the computers.

They're

working with elders in a range of aboriginal communities across the province,

for example, to capture words in the Secwepemc language and provide the

translation so that in the years ahead as, regrettably, some of the elders pass

away, we don't want to see those languages pass with them. In just a couple of

years now they have come a remarkably long way in that project and are feeling

very comfortable that in another year or two, the dictionary will provide just a

tremendous resource to young aboriginal people who want to reconnect with their

languages.

MacPhail: Thank you.

The next

one is: how is the minister or his government increasing program funding

together with the federal government to solve urban challenges and build

capacity? That's a specific new-era commitment, and I did hear the minister say

that's a challenge. What specific program funding is he working on with the

federal government to solve the urban challenges?

Hon. G.

Abbott: I'll try to answer the member's question this way. At the public

servant level there are ongoing discussions between or across ministries and

with their federal counterparts around some of the urban challenges. Again, I

guess, child issues, family issues, health issues, social justice issues and

criminal justice issues across the spectrum — there's a lot of ministries

involved. There is a public servants committee which is looking at these issues

and discussing them with federal counterparts. I chair a committee of provincial

ministers which has been looking at these issues. We are developing a provincial

strategy, on which we will then be working with the federal government to

implement.

[1615]

MacPhail: What are the indicators of success in terms of building capacity?

The New Era document speaks of building capacity. Capacity in what, and

how will you know whether you've done that or not?

Hon. G.

Abbott: To give the member an example of capacity-building, I'll first of

all just briefly note for the member that the Spallumcheen Indian band, which is

located in the Shuswap constituency, was, from 1986 or thereabouts until

recently, the sole Indian band in the province that managed child and family

issues themselves. What we would want to do, because the aspiration certainly

exists among numerous aboriginal communities, is build the capacity to provide

for that in more aboriginal communities across the province.

Again,

going back to the member's earlier comments, we do have to build the capacity to

ensure that in any transfer of responsibilities, there is the capacity to manage

those challenges.

MacPhail: Just so the minister knows. All I can do is ask the questions, and

then it's up to organizations to decide whether these answers are satisfactory

or not. I meet regularly with my friendship centre, and I'll be offering the

words of the minister. We'll just have to see whether these new-era commitments

are being met. None of them were part of the 90-day commitments, so the proof

that these commitments are in the works is in the pudding.

Another

one: what is the minister's government doing to "devote special attention

and resources to addressing the challenges and needs of aboriginal women and

youth"?

Hon. G.

Abbott: There are a number of initiatives underway in those areas. For

example, we have provided $100,000 in '01-02 towards projects at the community

level to mitigate against aboriginal youth involvement in the sex trade and

sexual exploitation. We're working with a group of aboriginal youth in the

province to establish a network and seek advice on priority issues. We're

working with the federal government and aboriginal youth to implement the

national aboriginal youth strategy in B.C. We have supported and have just

recently continued support to the Raven Youth Tech program, an initiative that's

managed through the B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres. We've

supported aboriginal youth participation in the new distributed learning program

at Royal Roads University, which helps train aboriginal youth as community

learning facilitators. And we have supported the Ministry of Attorney General's

restorative justice program.

Those are

some of the things. We also have other initiatives which are still in

development but which we will certainly be bringing forward at the appropriate

time.

MacPhail: At the beginning the minister mentioned a program targeted toward

youth that had funding for '01-02. Has that funding been cut now for '02-03?

Hon. G.

Abbott: No, it has not been cut. It's still available.

[ Page 2143 ]

MacPhail: So the amount carries through for '02-03. I just wondered why the

minister specified '01-02 — that's all.

[1620]

The

commitment in terms of helping aboriginal families bridge the digital divide.

The Raven Youth Tech program was a legacy of Grand Chief Ed John. When he was a

cabinet minister in the previous government, Grand Chief Ed John worked

extremely hard on that program, put it in place and knew that the best vehicle

for delivering that program was the aboriginal friendship centres. That existed

under the previous government.

What did

this government mean in their New Era document by "helping

aboriginal families bridge the digital divide"? What commitment has his

government made towards that?

Hon. G.

Abbott: I certainly agree with the member. Raven Tech is an excellent

program. It certainly is very much what's needed in terms of assisting

aboriginal youth beyond the education system to become computer-literate and

able to enjoy future careers that in some measure build on those computer

skills.

The

Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services is working with the chief

information officer and with the Ministry of Competition, Science and Enterprise

along with, most importantly, the Native Economic Development Advisory Board to

look at ways in which we can extend the opportunity to access computers and

computer technology.

MacPhail: Has this government made any commitment that's actually on the

ground yet — or money available that can be used now?

Hon. G.

Abbott: I guess one of the areas where additional resources have directly

been of assistance is in the First Citizens Fund. As we add to the existing $36

million — it's $45 million now, I guess — and as we enjoy more interest from

that, we are able to do more things. Certainly, a number of the proposals that

have made their way through the First Citizens Fund do have a relationship with

the technology sector. Again, the initiative that I referenced earlier with the

CIO and CSE and NEDAB is in its planning stages, and we do expect to see the

results of those efforts in the relatively near future.

MacPhail: The New Era document said that the Liberal government would

double the First Citizens Fund to $72 million to support native friendship

centres, student bursaries and economic development programs. The minister has

just said it's at $45 million. When will it be at $72 million to deliver on the

new-era promise?

Hon. G.

Abbott: The commitment was to double the fund over four years, so we add $9

million a year. Over a four-year cycle that would be doubled to $72 million.

The

Chair: Members, a short recess has been asked for. Therefore, the committee

will recess for five minutes and resume at half past.

The

committee recessed from 4:25 p.m. to 4:32 p.m.

[T. Christensen in the chair.]

MacPhail: What is the increased funding for the First Citizens Fund this

year going toward?

Hon. G.

Abbott: The expanded fund. We're working with the interest from the expanded

fund. The base fund remains the same. We work with the interest, and as the fund

itself grows, it produces more opportunities to do things.

Basically,

we're doing the same things around educational, cultural and business

opportunities that currently exist in the fund. We can just do more. In the

current fiscal year, one initiative I'm sure the member would be interested in

is an expanded business advisory service that the fund is undertaking. It is

being funded 50-50 by the fund and by the federal government.

MacPhail: The service plan of this ministry states: "The 1996 Canadian

census recognized that 70 percent of aboriginal people do not reside on

reserves, confirming that the majority of aboriginal people live in urban

settings. The urban aboriginal population is growing at a faster rate than

on-reserve populations." Can the minister please outline what funding

and/or programs the ministry has targeted specifically toward urban aboriginal

populations?

Hon. G.

Abbott: The programs of our ministry don't discriminate between on- and

off-reserve people. We try to make the programs available to both. However,

given that on-reserve aboriginals enjoy a special relationship with the federal

government, we do try to expand capacity to meet the needs of urban aboriginals.

[1635]

MacPhail: That was a little vague. I'm dealing with the minister's service

plan. It's not a statement that I made up. It's the minister's service plan

indicating that the urban aboriginal population is growing at a faster rate than

on-reserve populations. That's why I'm looking for urban-based aboriginal

programs. In fact, they could be on-reserve urban aboriginal programs — just

urban aboriginal programs.

The service

plan also states in its major trends section: "For aboriginal people in

B.C., quality of life indicators in all categories are consistently lower than

for other British Columbians. These indicators include health, education, labour

force participation, income levels, family and housing." I totally agree,

with shame, that those indicators are true, and I accept my responsibility for

moving slowly toward improving those horrendous statistics.

[ Page 2144 ]

There are

other statistics that are not in the report that face aboriginal populations,

and that is that the aboriginal child and youth suicide rate is six times higher

than the national average and that aboriginal women are disproportionately

represented in the prison system, disproportionately represented in low-income

categories and are at higher risk of homelessness, of abuse and of losing their

children. Those statistics are there and are exacerbated amongst the urban

aboriginal population.

I'm really

trying to find somewhere in this government where these issues are being

addressed. I have to be frank. I thought it would be with this minister that I

could discuss those matters. That's why I'm asking for specifics about programs

targeted toward the urban aboriginal population.

Hon. G.

Abbott: Again, I certainly agree with the member's introductory comments

around how, historically, governments in British Columbia — and I would go

back over a 125-year period — perhaps have not served aboriginal people as

well as they should have. Certainly, collectively, we have failed in a whole

range of measurables. Aboriginal people have not fared well.

I am not at

all in dispute of the member's suggestions that in health, education, social

justice, the courts, the criminal justice system — in all of those areas —

the indicators are not where they should be. Clearly, our government and every

government has a very big job in trying to see improvement in those indicators

over time. I'm not sure how else I can put this, because I don't think the

member is suggesting we should develop programs and then tell on-reserve

aboriginal people that they're not able to access them. What I understand from

staff is that for most of our programs, the bulk of the program resources

actually do go to urban aboriginals. I don't think the member is suggesting that

in cases where an application is appropriate, we should exclude on-reserve

aboriginals. We obviously don't want to do that.

The

problems that the member rightly outlined are acute both in urban settings and

in non-urban, reserve settings. Again, I am advised by staff that while we don't

discriminate between urban and non-urban, typically a program would be more

heavily accessed by the non-reserve aboriginal people.

[1640]

MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I'm looking for specifics on details of programs. I'll

concede, and happily concede, that programs are delivered equitably for

on-reserve and off-reserve. I'm looking for urban targeted programs to deal with

the issues of the disproportionately low health outcomes that face aboriginal

first nations people.

I think

I've said to the minister that come the end of this week, there's a whole bunch

of programs that are gone. I assume it's his responsibility at the cabinet table

to advocate delivery on the commitments made under the New Era document.

That's why I'm looking for specifics on programs.

Hon. G.

Abbott: Again, the point to the member — and I hope I'm being clear enough

here…. I will give her examples of programs that are primarily accessed by

off-reserve or urban aboriginal people, but again, we are not going to say to

someone on reserve, if they can make a case, that they're specifically excluded.

Some

examples. The business advisory program is something which is almost entirely of

an urban character. The aboriginal employment partnership initiative is one,

again, which would certainly affect 70 percent of aboriginal people who are off

reserve. The funding for the initiative, which I mentioned earlier, around

assisting aboriginal youth to avoid sexual exploitation and the sex trade is

primarily an urban aboriginal youth initiative. To a considerable extent, given

that friendship centres have been the delivery agent for the Raven Youth Tech

program, that has been primarily an urban-based program as well.

MacPhail: Has the minister initiated any programs that are new under his

regime?

Hon. G.

Abbott: I won't go through the whole list. The first two that I referred the

member to — the business advisory program is new, and the aboriginal

employment partnership initiative is new as well. Additionally, as I say, there

are other initiatives in development, and we will be announcing them when they

are ready for announcement.

MacPhail: The business advisory program that the minister has initiated —

what is to achieve? The service plan states that the development of aboriginal

business is hindered by the inability to access capital at competitive interest

rates. What's the relationship between that statement and the new business

advisory program that the minister has created?

Hon. G.

Abbott: I think the member was looking for more information with respect to

the business advisory program. That is as the name would suggest. Perhaps with

the assistance of the First Citizens Fund or through other means, aboriginal

people undertake business ventures, and the business advisory program provides

them with counselling and assistance where they need it on business advice to

try to assure the success of their business, particularly during the first five

years when frequently the businesses are tested.

MacPhail: Does that program have any aspect to it that addresses the concern

raised in the minister's own service plan that aboriginal business people are

hindered by inability to access capital at competitive interest rates?

Hon. G.

Abbott: No.

MacPhail: Why is this mentioned in the service plan, then? What's the

purpose of mentioning it? Is there a solution available?

[ Page 2145 ]

Hon. G.

Abbott: The First Citizens Fund loan program is intended to address the

difficulty as is set out in the service plan around being able to access capital

at prime rates, for example.

[1645]

MacPhail: The First Citizens Fund existed prior to this government, though.

It was created by the previous government. I'm just wondering what the service

plan…. Is it relying on the status quo of the First Citizens Fund to resolve

that issue, or is the First Citizens Fund successful in resolving that issue?

Hon. G.

Abbott: The First Citizens Fund has been of some assistance in resolving

that issue. I think that is larger than the ability of any single program to

overcome, but it has been of assistance in resolving some of those issues. As

the fund expands and doubles over four years, the resources we'll have available

to assist further will be there.

MacPhail: In the service plan under table 3, the performance indicators and

targets, it states under that

section that the ministry has a goal to create a

provincial strategy to increase federal funding for aboriginal programs and

services. Has that strategy been drafted?

Hon. G.

Abbott: A draft has been prepared with respect to that strategy, but it does

have some steps to go through before it would be presented to the federal

government.

MacPhail: Was there aboriginal involvement in that strategy?

Hon. G.

Abbott: In the broad sense of developing the ideas around it, yes. The

specific document, I'm advised, has not been shared at this point. The draft

document has not been shared with aboriginal representatives at this point.

MacPhail: The table also states that the government is to develop

performance measures to assess improvements in quality of life for aboriginal

people in B.C. Have those performance measures been drafted? Has there been

consultation with aboriginal people on the drafting of those performance

measures? When will they be made public?

Hon. G.

Abbott: I believe that particular goal is for the service plan for next

year. That's when it's going to be further developed.

MacPhail: What's the method of consultation on that?

Hon. G.

Abbott: There will be focused consultations on those in the year ahead.

MacPhail: The reason I was asking the minister whether the First Citizens

Fund was successful in addressing the issue of assisting businesses with one of

the barriers they face is that in that same performance plan there is an item

referring to the number of aboriginal businesses started or expanded with the

assistance of the First Citizens Fund. The baseline is 130. The target for

'02-03, '03-04 and '04-05 is also 130.

I assumed

that there was some other mechanism by which this government was planning to

assist aboriginal businesses because even by the government's own goals, they

don't plan to achieve any increased success in that area. I found it confusing.

Could the

minister explain what I think is a discrepancy in the commitment to assist

aboriginal businesses?

Hon. G.

Abbott: The number in the service plan is not cumulative. It's ongoing.

That's 130 per year. The First Citizens Fund board manages that. We have tried

to set out reasonable and conservative expectations for them.

MacPhail: The minister is saying it's not cumulative. Does that mean it's

incremental each year by 130 businesses? The minister is nodding yes. Okay.

Great.

[1650]

The next

part on the service plan is for a first peoples heritage, language and culture

council. Again, I need help on that. It's on page 9 of the service plan. It says

that one of the targets is to "increase the annual revenue fivefold to $7.5

million by 2004-2005 with at least 80 percent coming from earned and

investor-generated income." In the current year there's $3.6 million, and

$2.38 million of that is earned. What plan does the minister have for achieving

the fivefold increase in revenue?

Hon.

G. Abbott: I'll just read this with the member's agreement here. This will

give you a more complete sense of the program than what I laid out earlier.

FirstVoices.com, which is the program they're working on, is:

"People

living away from their home communities will be able to participate in

language-learning activities through an Internet connection. Based upon

community wishes, all recorded information on their language can be

password-protected. This project has already attracted interest from other

parts of Canada and internationally. Apple Computers, Hewlett-Packard and

Shaw Cable are some of the initial corporate bodies that have supported the

development of this unique and revolutionary language recording and teaching

tool.

"Work

is currently underway recording the Shuswap language as an initial trial,

and regional workshops are planned this summer throughout the province to

further increase people's awareness and to determine other communities that

will be using FirstVoices to record their languages."

So there is a corporate participation element in the program.

MacPhail: Sorry. That's the information on how the revenue is going to

increase fivefold? It's at page 9 of the service plan.

Hon. G.

Abbott: I'm sorry. Perhaps the member could send over the piece. It's not

making any sense to us in relation to the language initiative.

[ Page 2146 ]

MacPhail: I did all my preparation from the service plan. Is the minister

saying that he doesn't have that service plan? I mean, that's fine. It's on page

9 of the service plan. We got that off the Internet, so I don't know whether the

minister is working from a different service plan.

Hon. G.

Abbott: If I can suggest to the Chair, if we could leave this question for a

moment, we'll get the information, because….

Interjection.

Hon. G.

Abbott: Simply, we are increasing the support for the program from $750,000

to $1 million. Beyond that, we're not aware of any fivefold increase in anything

around this particular program.

MacPhail: I'm referring to the service plan for the First Peoples Heritage,

Language and Culture Council — okay? It says on page 9 of the service plan of

the First Peoples Heritage, Language and Culture Council…. We can leave this

question aside. It's not earthshaking, but it is one where the government has

set out an ambitious plan that says "to increase the annual revenue

fivefold to $7.5 million…."

Hon. G.

Abbott: And this is page 9?

MacPhail: Of the service plan for the First Peoples Heritage, Language and

Culture Council.

Interjection.

[1655]

MacPhail: Okay. Anyway, Mr. Chair, we'll leave it, but it is a very

ambitious goal, and it would be interesting to see how the government's going to

monitor that or achieve that.

Let me

refer, then, to the next item. I've got the photocopy here. It's page 12 of the

service plan under "Performance Indicators," table 3. It says:

"Provincial strategy to increase federal funding for aboriginal programs

and services." Again, what would that be, other than asking the federal

government for more money? Please tell me the strategy that entails.

Hon. G.

Abbott: Broadly speaking, the concern we have, particularly as we see the

trend which was noted previously of more aboriginal people moving into an urban

setting and off-reserve, is that the federal government's responsibility for

off-reserve aboriginals is unclear. We're particularly concerned in a number of

program areas — you can predict