2007 Legislative Session: Third Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2007

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 23, Number 2

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First

Reading of Bills

Greater Vancouver Transportation

Authority Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 43)

Hon. K.

Falcon

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Columbia River Treaty

Bennett

Violence against South Asian

seniors

J. Brar

Canadian troops in Afghanistan

Roddick

Government support for small

business

Robertson

Seniors service organizations in

Burnaby

R. Lee

Fundraising efforts inspired by

Stephen Lewis

Macdonald

Speaker's Statement

Rules for public bills in the

hands of private members

Oral Questions

Removal of land from tree farm

licence in Kootenay area

C. James

Hon. R.

Coleman

Simpson

C. Evans

Conroy

Compensation for businesses

affected by construction of Canada line

Robertson

Hon. K.

Falcon

Hon. C.

Taylor

Ralston

Distribution of booster seats to

low-income families

Trevena

Hon. L.

Reid

Farnworth

Petitions

G. Robertson

Committee of the Whole House

Securities Amendment Act, 2007

(Bill 28) (continued)

L. Krog

Hon. W.

Oppal

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Securities Amendment Act, 2007

(Bill 28)

Second Reading of Bills

Tsawwassen First Nation Final

Agreement Act (Bill 40) (continued)

H. Bains

H. Lali

Thorne

Horgan

Austin

A. Dix

[ Page 8733 ]

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2007

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. Coell: I have a number of guests in the Legislature

this afternoon.

I'd first like the House to welcome Chief Vern Jacks of the

Tseycum First Nation. I look forward to meeting with Chief Jacks this afternoon

with the Attorney General and, also, the Minister of Tourism, Sport and the

Arts. Chief Jacks is accompanied by his wife Cora and friend Alec Sam. Would the

House please make them welcome.

I would also like to welcome Cindy Oliver, who's the president of

the Federation of Post-Secondary Educators. She's here today with the FPSE's

presidents council from the colleges and institutions from around the province.

I met this morning with Cindy and the council, and I know they're meeting with

other members of the Legislature this afternoon. Would the House please make

them welcome.

R. Sultan: In the galleries today we have 26 students from

grades 5 and 6 of Chartwell Elementary School in West Vancouver, accompanied by

their parents and teacher Ms. Jessye Labaj.

Chartwell School serves approximately 260 children. The school

population currently represents children from 28 different nations. Its

diversity makes Chartwell a unique learning community for children, parents and

staff. They take great pride in this multicultural diversity and the learning

experience it offers.

Would the House please make these young students welcome.

D. Routley: I, along with several of my colleagues in the

opposition, would like to welcome several of the members of the Federation of

Post-Secondary Educators to the precinct. They have come to discuss the many

challenges that our public post-secondary institutions face in addressing

enrolment issues and funding issues.

[1335]

R. Cantelon: Please welcome friends of this House.

Councillor Jeet Manhas and his wife Kaajal are with us today in the gallery. If

I may, I would like to correct a grievous and potentially fatal mistake, because

for the second time my dear wife Shelly is in the gallery today, and I hope your

warm welcome will save me from further retribution.

L. Krog: I hate to correct the member for Nanaimo-Parksville,

but he's left out one of the most important members of the Manhas family, their

son Arjan, who is also with us in the gallery.

J. McIntyre: I also have students here today from West

Vancouver. It must be a busy day. There are 37 students — I hope they're here

now — arriving at the Legislature this afternoon.

They're from Rockridge Secondary School, which is something

particularly special for me because it's where both my children attended. In

fact, my daughter was in the very first class of grade 7 at Rockridge when it

started off as a middle school.

I'd just ask the House to make them feel welcome today, and I look

forward to seeing them after QP.

Hon. G. Hogg: In defence of my colleague from Nanaimo-Parksville,

he did not forget to mention Arjan. He was leaving it to me because I wanted to

be able to recognize the great Arjan Manhas, who's such a great devotee of the

member for Nanaimo-Parksville and of government in general. Would the House

please make him most welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

GREATER VANCOUVER TRANSPORTATION

AUTHORITY AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

Hon. K. Falcon presented a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority

Amendment Act, 2007.

Hon. K. Falcon: I move that Bill 43 be introduced and read

a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. K. Falcon: Today I am introducing Bill 43, Greater

Vancouver Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2007. On April 26 of this year

I introduced Bill 36 of the same name. Time did not permit for the House to

consider that bill during the spring session. Consequently, it remains on the

order paper for this session.

Bill 36 contained certain amendments that were time sensitive and

had to be enacted earlier this year to be useful. That obviously did not happen.

With the exception of minor changes that reflect stakeholders' input and the

timing changes, I can say that most of Bill 43 is identical to Bill 36.

At this time I would like to read my first reading statement from

April 26, 2007, as a means of outlining the cornerstones of Bill 43. In 2006, I

appointed an independent panel of three eminent British Columbians to review the

governance and structure of TransLink, to seek input from stakeholders and the

public and to submit recommendations to me.

The major amendments contained in this bill will implement most of

the recommendations of the panel and will put in place a new planning framework

and governance structure, and balanced, sustainable funding measures that will

build a solid foundation for an expanded, high-quality public transportation

system in the lower mainland.

Major features of this bill include the creation of a mayors

council to maintain accountability of TransLink

[ Page 8734 ]

to taxpayers, and the creation of a professional board of directors who will

have the skills and background necessary to oversee the operation of TransLink.

It will include the creation of an independent commissioner, who

will enhance transparency and due diligence regarding TransLink's plans and

initiatives and who will authorize any proposed fare increases. And, finally,

the creation of a substantially improved planning process.

The name of the authority is also amended to the South Coast

British Columbia Transportation Authority to reflect the fact that as our

population and economy continue to grow, we will need a transportation authority

that services the broader region and not just the Greater Vancouver area.

Implicit in this, I request that Bill 36 be removed from the order paper.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for the

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

Bill 43, Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Amendment Act,

2007, 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.

[1340]

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY

B. Bennett: I participated in a panel discussion on Friday

in Castlegar on the Columbia River Treaty. Although this treaty brought huge

benefits to B.C. and to Canada, the flooding of our valleys also brought some of

the worst government heavy-handedness in the history of our great province.

The stars of this panel discussion were Lloyd and Ruth Sharpe, who

are constituents and friends of mine. Both of them are in their 80s. They

remember very well in 1940 when a total stranger drove up to their ranch house

and told them that the Kootenay River valley would be dammed up at Libby,

Montana, and there was nothing they could do about it. For over 20 years the

Sharpes and their neighbours were subjected to rumours about imminent dam

construction and periodic unannounced visits from shadowy men in suits.

One day in the 1960s, after years of being stonewalled by

governments, another stranger arrived at their door and ordered them to tear

down their barns and fences and move their livestock to higher ground. The

beautiful little community of Waldo, nestled along the fertile bottom land of

the valley, was to be abandoned. Ranches forged out of the wilderness in the

late 1880s would disappear forever.

Lloyd kept on fighting for over a decade, and in fact, he's still

fighting for justice. The Sharpes' story has been covered by all the major

Canadian media — the news networks, television news networks and the national

newspapers — but the dam got built. The Sharpes will tell you today that the

benefits have helped everyone in B.C., even though the cost was borne by a few.

I told the Sharpes the good news that the government is working

closely with the people of the region through the Columbia Basin Trust to ensure

that basin voices are heard as we approach the important treaty renewal decision

in 2014. That's important to Lloyd and Ruth Sharpe because this time around

their children and their grandchildren will be consulted. The people of the

Kootenay River valley this time around will get their say.

VIOLENCE AGAINST

SOUTH ASIAN SENIORS

J. Brar: Surrey has recently seen a spate of violent

attacks on South Asian seniors. It seems more and more that we can no longer

dismiss the problem by saying that these are isolated cases. To demonstrate my

point, here is a list of recent incidents involving seniors.

In October 2007 a busload of farmworkers was attacked. Some of

these workers were reportedly seniors. In the same month two Indo-Canadian men

in their 70s were attacked by a group of men in Bear Creek Park early in the

morning. Again in October of this year, a senior was attacked using a paintball,

injuring his eye. In addition to these recent attacks, the July 2005 tragic

beating and deaths of Mewa Singh Bains and Shingara Singh Thandi have been

imprinted on the community's psyche.

I have had countless calls from constituents who want to draw

attention to the fear these attacks are creating among South Asian families and

seniors. They deserve to have the reassurance that we are taking their concerns

seriously.

I also want to emphasize that we should be very careful before

labelling a crime as racially motivated, but at the same time, if there is a

pattern of a particular group being disproportionately impacted, we have an

obligation to give it the attention it deserves.

These seniors come to our wonderful province with the hope to lead

a better and more secure life, but these attacks have certainly shattered their

confidence about their safety. There are growing calls to examine our current

legal structure and look at bringing in changes that would lead to appropriate

punishments for crimes of such a cowardly nature.

I urge every member of this House to condemn these attacks on

seniors and do everything possible to ensure that our seniors feel safe in their

homes and neighbourhood.

CANADIAN TROOPS IN AFGHANISTAN

V. Roddick: Support our troops. The Canadian Armed Forces

has always been an exemplary contributor to world safety and peace. Afghanistan

is no exception.

Jim Short is a Ladner United Church reverend who departs in

January for Afghanistan to serve as chaplain team leader. The role of chaplain

was transformed by Woodbine Willie during the First World War whose motto was:

"Live with the soldiers. Go everywhere they go. Take cigarettes in your

haversack and lots of love in

[ Page 8735 ]

your heart. You can pray with them sometimes, but remember to pray for them

always."

[1345]

Jim's daughter Katy, 23, is currently in Afghanistan working as a

civilian member of The Canadian Forces Personnel Support Agency. Another

prominent local troop supporter and member of White Rock Rotary is Clifford

Grant. He and his team filled a warehouse in Delta South with a touch of home.

A container was packed with items that troops missed from home,

most prominently 3,500 rolls of soft toilet paper — not military issue. Bryan's

Book Store in Ladner donated pocketbooks. Others donated lots of Tim Hortons

coffee certificates and loads of pens, pins and other small items for the troops

to hand out as they not only provide security but help rebuild that nation.

As Clifford so aptly put it:"We are not talking about the war or

whose side we are on. We're talking about helping our children and grandchildren

who willingly chose to leave their comfortable homes behind and defend the

everyday values we take for granted." This is from one Canadian to another — no

politics here, Mr. Speaker: support our troops.

GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR

SMALL BUSINESS

G. Robertson: October is Small Business Month in B.C.

There's no doubt that we have a vibrant sector powered by entrepreneurs, as the

CFIB says.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

G. Robertson: We are blessed….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue.

G. Robertson: We're blessed with talent and tenacity that

puts us at the forefront of small business success in Canada, but it's

hypocritical to name days, weeks and even months after causes that are

intentionally underserved.

Small business represents 57 percent of the jobs in B.C. We are

talking about a majority of our business sector and our economy. Does small

business get a majority of the support from all levels of government? Not even

close.

As a small business owner, I join a number of my peers in

demanding fairness, a level playing field for small business which we don't have

today in B.C. The brutal plight of the small businesses along the Cambie line

corridor is a clear example. Big business is enjoying billions in cash flow from

the privatized project, but the true cost of construction has been downloaded on

the merchants.

The pattern is repeated provincewide. The Jordan River land

giveaway and softwood lumber agreement are benefiting the huge multinational

forest companies. The softwood agreement, for example, is having a devastating

impact on lumber remanufacturers in the value-added sector. Whether it's huge

subsidies to oil and gas corporations, the most profitable in human history, or

the mining giants, via electrification of Highway 37, or big liquor retailers

getting deep discounts, the deck is stacked for big business, which is all the

more reason to praise our small businesses who succeed despite the lack of

respect and the billions of dollars in subsidies, incentives and P3 contracts.

Imagine what our entrepreneurs could achieve with a level playing

field. That would be a real measure of fairness, respect and foresight, and it

would also provide good reason for small business to celebrate the whole month

of October.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Member, take your seat. Member, take your seat for a second.

We've done so well for the start of the week, Members. I want to

remind that private member statements are to be non-partisan.

SENIORS SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS

IN BURNABY

R. Lee: As the winter season falls upon us, wet air blows

around the city and temperatures sink in the long night. It's the warmness of

the family that fills our hearts.

In our society a family unit usually consists of two generations:

parents and children. But in many cultures, a family is home to three or four

generations. Seniors and extended families share their wisdom, time and energy

with the younger generations and receive care from them.

When seniors live independently from their children or

grandchildren, they need more services from the community. In Burnaby we have a

wide range of seniors services provided by the Fraser Health, the city of

Burnaby and many non-profit organizations.

[1350]

Of government's 5,000-bed commitments, 1,400 are in the Fraser

Health. Fraser Health offers home and community care services, which include

nursing, rehabilitation and long-term care, flu clinics, diabetes education,

mental health and addiction services and a fall-prevention mobile clinic that

travels around the Fraser Health area providing education to seniors on how to

prevent falls.

The city of Burnaby and citizen support services offer Seniors

Active in Living — SAIL — a phone buddy program, a volunteer visitor program,

outings for the elderly, Burnaby Partners in Seniors Wellness and Living a

Healthy Life with Chronic Conditions.

We are very fortunate to have volunteers providing so many seniors

services. In the Seniors Well Aware Program, a counsellor visits seniors who

have problems with alcohol, medication or other drugs at their home. The Burnaby

Seniors Outreach Services Society

[ Page 8736 ]

promotes emotional health and trains peer counsellors to support seniors

through difficult times.

We are also home to the Burnaby Meals on Wheels, North Burnaby

Retired Society, Seniors South Asian Friendship Society, Burnaby Fall Prevention

Society, care givers support groups and Burnaby Hospice Society.

FUNDRAISING EFFORTS

INSPIRED BY STEPHEN LEWIS

N. Macdonald: On Sunday I joined over 600 Kootenay

residents in Cranbrook to hear Stephen Lewis speak. Members will know that

Stephen Lewis has a tremendous list of accomplishments, including his work as

the United Nations representative in the fight against HIV/AIDS.

If members have not already done so, I highly recommend reading

his book Race Against Time , which builds on the work he did for the

Massey Lectures. It is a powerful read, and I'm hoping that a number of you have

already read it.

The opportunity to hear Stephen Lewis speak — and he was in

Vancouver, Victoria and Whistler as well, so maybe many of you attended that —

is a compelling example of the power of spoken word. He is a tremendous speaker.

It is inspired by those words that…. You have the organization

Grandmothers to Grandmothers and, if you remember, at the beginning of the week

we had visitors from Zambia that were part of that organization.

Last spring I had a booth at the Golden trade fair, and beside me

you had a group of Golden members of the Grandmothers to Grandmothers. I saw my

mother-in-law, the person who rents me the office for the constituency office,

and a group of friends and neighbours who were working together with

grandmothers on the other side of the world to make a difference with the

difficulties created by the HIV/AIDS epidemic.

Walking home at a different time I met

Kara Hunt, inspired by

Stephen Lewis, who is a teacher in the area. She is working with her class and

other students in the area to raise money for Africa.

Last year a group of Selkirk Secondary students in Kimberley were

organizing for July 7 of 2007, which is of course the 07/07/07. They had been

inspired by Stephen Lewis. They had read the book, they discussed it, and they

met to put together an event to raise the issue of Canada's lack of meeting the

objectives set by Lester Pearson for 0.7 percent of our GDP going towards

international development.

If you've not read the book, it's there in the library for us. I

would invite all members to take the time to read it.

Speaker's Statement

RULES FOR PUBLIC BILLS

IN THE HANDS OF PRIVATE MEMBERS

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, there appears to be some

uncertainty in relation to the longstanding practice of debates on public bills

in the hands of private members. Such bills have strict limitations

procedurally, and in this regard, I refer the members to Standing Order 67 and

to the considerable body of jurisprudence emanating from the standing order.

Public bills in the hands of private members have, on innumerable

occasions, been introduced and permitted to proceed to second reading

notwithstanding that such bills are flawed, preventing the adoption of the

measure. As purely a matter of courtesy, the proponents of such bills have been

permitted to speak briefly to a second reading outlining the thrust of such a

bill.

But on a point of order being raised or in the absence of such a

point of order being raised, it's the Speaker's duty to advise the members that

the bill in the hands of the private member cannot proceed further, and the bill

is accordingly ruled out of order.

[1355]

Members will understand that it would be totally inappropriate for

the Chair to allow a bill to proceed to a vote on second reading when the bill

itself contained a fatal flaw as prescribed in our standing orders and

innumerable Speakers' rulings in this House.

Many jurisdictions in the Commonwealth do not even permit such a

bill to proceed beyond first reading, and such bills are removed from the order

paper after introduction. No opportunity to speak to second reading is provided.

The practice of this House has been somewhat more benign, and as I stated

earlier, the proponents of such flawed bills, as a matter of pure courtesy, have

been permitted a limited time to speak on second reading before the bill is

ruled out of order.

The Chair is prepared to continue this practice as long as members

clearly understand that the bill in the hands of a private member which does not

conform to the well-established rules of the House cannot proceed to a vote. As

there are several grounds on which a public bill in the hands of a private

member may be out of order, sponsors of that bill may wish to check with the

Clerks before second reading to see if the bill contains one of the flaws which

would prevent the bill from moving forward.

Let it be clear, however, that it is the Speaker and the Speaker

alone who has been given the authority and the responsibility to rule the bill

out of order on procedural grounds.

Point of Order

Hon. M. de Jong: I rise on a point of order and pursuant to

Standing Order 9.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Hon. M. de Jong: Yesterday the following remarks were

attributed to the Leader of the Opposition, who was referring to proceedings

yesterday morning in a press release issued under the banner "The New Democratic

Party" and in her name, the following statement: "The Liberals today cut off

debate." In a radio report they quote: "They" — referring to the government —

"won't even allow us to debate it."

[ Page 8737 ]

The remarks are inaccurate, and they fundamentally misrepresent

what took place yesterday in the chamber. Worse….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: Worse, Mr. Speaker, they challenge the

very integrity and impartiality of the Chair.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Wait.

Point of order, Member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca.

J. Horgan: I am curious as to whether we're correcting

press releases in the Legislature from this point on. If that's the case, I've

got a list of press releases that I'd like to bring forward for debate as well.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Take your seat.

Continue.

Hon. M. de Jong: The Chair, the Speaker, is elected by all

hon. members to apply the rules that govern proceedings in this House. Yesterday

the Chair was performing those duties when he issued his ruling on the private

member's bill in question — on his own accord and not at the behest of any

government member, who was ready, willing and able to engage in the debate, had

it continued.

The suggestion advanced by the Leader of the Opposition that the

government or Premier cut off debate or stifled debate is blatantly false. As is

the custom in this House, I invite the Leader of the Opposition to apologize to

all hon. members, including the Premier, and to the Chair, whose impartiality

she impugned.

M. Farnworth: Thank you….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue.

M. Farnworth: I thank my colleague across the way for his

clarification, but I would like to remind you, hon. Speaker, that points of

order are for matters that are in debate when inside this chamber.

C. Evans: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

C. Evans: We're joined in the gallery by my friend and

former neighbour Bari Blackhart. She wasn't here when we made introductions;

she's just come in the room. Bari's here with the Post-Secondary Educators.

She's the president of Local 21. She is my former neighbour. She lives in

Vancouver, much to our chagrin, but she comes back to Winlaw every year to whip

the entire neighbourhood at ping-pong.

Welcome to the Legislature.

[1400]

Oral Questions

REMOVAL OF LAND FROM

TREE FARM LICENCE

IN KOOTENAY AREA

C. James: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we established that the

Minister of Forests failed to consult with communities around the release of

private lands from tree farm licences in Jordan River and Port Alberni. The

minister's only defence that we heard yesterday was that companies can sell

whatever private land they have.

Well, what he's not saying, what he's hiding is that tree farm

licences across this province were created with private and public lands to

establish permanent forest opportunities to benefit communities.

What the minister ignores and chooses to ignore, as well as the

rest of this government, is that those are social contracts that were put in

place. Companies received access to forest lands and in return benefited

financially from public tax exemptions and subsidies. When the minister allows

those companies to sell vast chunks of land, he's breaching that social

contract, and the public gets nothing — no compensation.

Today there's another example in the Kootenays. Will the minister

please confirm: has he released or is he about to release 16,000 acres from tree

farm licence 23 in the Arrow Lakes and Boundary region?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: I don't know if the heckling is worse on

my side or the other side.

No, there has been no release of lands from TFL 23. The member

knows that under the Forest Act, companies can apply to have lands removed. I

understand that there is an application coming through. I have not seen it. It's

going through first nations consultation, which is ongoing. Until my staff has

completed the work, it wouldn't come to my desk.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a

supplemental.

C. James: The minister may say that he hasn't seen it, but

it appears that Pope and Talbot have already decided what they're doing. Pope

and Talbot have actually listed 35 properties. Thirty-five properties have

actually been listed, consisting of 15,800 acres, on the Colliers International

website. They've already listed

[ Page 8738 ]

these properties for sale. They've already decided that the minister is going

to release them.

I'd like to ask the minister now. If that's not the case, then

will the minister stand up now and tell Pope and Talbot to actually remove those

properties from the listing?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: What you didn't say is that the

advertisement says: "Subject to removal." If it isn't removed, it can't be sold.

There's no recommendation from the minister. There's been no conversation

between myself and Pope and Talbot in this regard. Until recommendations come

through, I will not be actually prejudging recommendations or making a decision.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

C. James: Mr. Speaker, it doesn't matter if it's Jordan

River, it doesn't seem to matter if it's Port Alberni, and it certainly doesn't

matter to the minister now that it's the Kootenays. This Minister of Forests is

more interested in million-dollar giveaways than the people in communities and

what matters to them.

The minister says he hasn't made a decision yet, even though the

company is already spending dollars advertising, even though spokespeople for

the company have already made statements publicly, saying they're looking

forward to selling these lands off for development. If the minister hasn't

actually made a decision yet, would the minister commit today to say to Pope and

Talbot: "Withdraw those ads"? And will the minister commit to go into the

Kootenays and talk to the people before a decision is made?

Hon. R. Coleman: I realize the member opposite is a little

frustrated because I won't make a commitment on what my decision will be before

I see the information. I get the fact that she doesn't like the fact that we're

consulting with first nations. I get the fact that she doesn't want to admit to

the fact that somebody has some land up, subject to removal, and if it doesn't

get removed, it can't be sold. I get all that, which is fine.

[1405]

The reality is that I don't know what the recommendation of my

staff will be until I see it. They are going through a process, which is what

they did in the last removal and made a recommendation to say yes. I will wait

for that recommendation from my staff because — I hate to break the news to you

— every area of the province has an amount of land available for forestry, and

it's a whole lot different from area to area. They'll make that recommendation

on its merit, and at that time I'll make my decision.

B. Simpson: In 2004 the previous Minister of Forests was

told by his own staff not to release the private lands in the Weyerhaeuser

private land release. That established a precedent, because the minister

released them over the express opinion of his senior staff. So it doesn't appear

to make any difference what the staff say.

He released the Western Forest Products lands, and he seems to

think these are just private lands that the company has unfettered access to and

should be able to sell. I think that's what Pope and Talbot are presuming.

So my question to the minister is this. Two and a half years into

the file, can he tell us what schedule-A private lands have on them as

restrictions when they are in a tree farm licence? What restrictions are there

on those schedule-A lands?

Hon. R. Coleman: The member knows well that they're

governed by the Forest Act and other laws that are the same as on Crown lands. I

get the fact that the member doesn't like the fact that the Western exclusion

took place after a recommendation from my staff.

What I don't get — the fact is this — is when this opposition will

admit to the rest of British Columbians that they don't believe people should

have rights on private land. They don't like to see….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: That's right. You don't like to see

investment in British Columbia, which we have at record rates in this province

today. You'd rather stifle that investment. The fact of the matter is you would

rather see….

Interjections.

Hon. R. Coleman: I know you're getting excited because….

You know what? It's that left-leaning thing that says people should never have a

right to do anything on land and build a future in British Columbia. I happen to

believe that if the recommendation is there, we make the right decision at that

time. We made the right decision at the time on the Western lands.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member has a supplemental.

B. Simpson: The minister has already said that when those

schedule-A private lands are in a tree farm licence, they are de facto Crown

land with all of the obligations of Crown land. The company has got control over

other Crown land because they brought those private lands in. These are not fee

simple private lands. They're de facto Crown lands with three constraints. They

cannot be sold. They cannot be given to a third party. They must be governed

under the Forest Act.

[ Page 8739 ]

Pope and Talbot has its schedule-A private lands up for sale. They

are breaking the agreement that they have with the government on tree farm

licence 23 right now. They are breaking that by trying to sell these lands.

My question to the minister is this. Will the minister commit

today to tell Pope and Talbot that until such time as he has consulted with the

people of the Kootenays…? Until such time as he's done that consultation, will

the minister tell them to take those properties off the Colliers International

website until the people of the Kootenays make the decision, and not this

minister?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, the member knows that under

the Forest Act the company can ask for removal. The member knows that it has to

go through consultation with the first nations. The member knows that it has to

go through a process before it hits the desk of the minister.

He also knows, which is where he's being disingenuous, that you

cannot sell the lands while they're in the TFL. That's why it says in the sale

document: "Subject to removal." If the recommendation comes back and it doesn't

support that removal, those lands won't get sold. It's that simple.

I don't know why you can't wait…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[1410]

Hon. R. Coleman: …for the process to take place, which will

take place. It will take place and come to my desk at the appropriate time after

my staff…. My professional staff, whose integrity you continue to question, are

going to do their job in a professional manner and come back with a

recommendation that is appropriate to the minister.

C. Evans: Hon. Speaker, I think, at least for the benefit

of the folks at home, we should maybe explain what schedule-A land means, so

this isn't too esoteric.

There are two kinds of what we call land-based tenure in B.C. One

is woodlots, for little people — farmers, ranchers, loggers — and one is tree

farm licences, for big corporations. They both have schedule-A lands, like

Bari's sister and brother-in-law, who are loggers. They went and bought some

private land and then put it in with some Crown land to make a large enough

amount that they would be given a woodlot. Now, Bari's sister can't sell the

private land without losing the woodlot. That's the way it is for the little

people of British Columbia.

My question for the minister is…. Bari's sister lives 50 miles

from Pope and Talbot's for-sale sign. How come your rules are different for her

family — the little people, the logging people — than the big corporation who

wants to pay American banks with our land?

Hon. R. Coleman: Thanks for the diatribe from the member

for Nelson-Creston.

The fact of the matter is that under the Forest Act, they can

apply. It goes through a process. It comes to the minister's desk. Nobody has

made a decision on these lands today, and a decision will not be made until a

process is complete.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

C. Evans: Yesterday the minister said in here… He was kind

of….

If mine was a diatribe, what do you call what you do?

Anyway, he said that we defend the sale…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. Evans: …of chunks of southern Vancouver Island because

it protected jobs, gave Western Forest Products capital to build a mill and

restructure and put money in.

Pope and Talbot is not in that situation. Pope and Talbot is under

bankruptcy protection. They aren't building mills; they're selling them. The

loggers I represent in Nakusp and Edgewood…. The contractors are having meetings

because they're afraid of not getting paid.

My question is: will the minister go and meet the contractor

community of Nakusp before he decides on whether or not Pope and Talbot can sell

the equity that we want in our community? It is a question of people's wealth —

all of you guys, all of you folks, your wealth.

Mr. Speaker: Question, Member.

C. Evans: The minister will decide to sell it to the United

States or give it back to the loggers of Nakusp, according to what he wants to

do.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: I don't mind matching my diatribe up

against the member for Nelson-Creston's at any time, because it's part of the

debate of this House.

I tell you what, though. The lands can, under the law, be

requested to be removed, and it goes through a process before it gets to the

minister's desk. It's not there yet. The decision has not been made.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Hon. R. Coleman: We will see what happens as it comes

through the process. I'm sure the concerns the member has raised will be

reviewed by my staff before they bring me the recommendation.

[ Page 8740 ]

K. Conroy: It's interesting. Yesterday the minister's

justification for releasing Western Forest Products land was that he cared so

much about Western's 3,300 workers that he wanted to ensure the company remained

viable.

However, to the Minister of Forests: does he have a guarantee that

the estimated $40 million that Pope and Talbot will pocket from the sale of

these lands will ensure the long-term viability of Pope and Talbot and secure

the hundreds of jobs that are at risk in the Kootenays?

[1415]

Hon. R. Coleman: There's no decision in front of the

minister. There's no opportunity for these lands to be sold unless they were

removed. All the things you're saying will be looked at by my staff before they

bring a recommendation to the minister, including the consultation with first

nations.

At that point in time, I will see the information and make a

decision, but not until then. You can prejudge what you think I'm going to do,

but you don't know what the decision will be until we see a recommendation from

my staff.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

K. Conroy: What my colleague said is indeed true. Pope and

Talbot is in serious trouble. Three of their mills are shut down right now.

They're looking for a buyer. Pope and Talbot can only be cost-effective if they

can tow logs down the Arrow Lakes.

I'm giving the minister some education here. In a single tow, they

can tow hundreds of truckloads of logs. The land they have up for sale is the

land that they use for log sorts and dumps. If they sell those lands, the mill

is no longer viable. The mill is no longer attractive to any buyer that's going

to come in and take over the running of that mill.

What we want today is that the minister, if he is so concerned

about jobs in the forest industry, come up to the Kootenays, that he talk to the

people in the Kootenays — that he talk to all of those people who are interested

in securing their jobs, in securing our children's future. Come up to the

Kootenays and engage in a public consultation.

Hon. R. Coleman: I know the member opposite would like me

to tell her what the decision is or what the recommendation is or what's going

on when it's in the very early stages of discussion.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: I know that side….

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat for a second.

Okay, continue.

Hon. R. Coleman: I know that side of the House advocates

interference in process. All you have to do is look at the history of the

Carrier Lumber lawsuit in British Columbia and how you decided to influence

decision-making. In actual fact, I'm not going to do that. I am going to let it

go through the legal process to get to my desk before I make a decision.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

COMPENSATION FOR BUSINESSES

AFFECTED BY CONSTRUCTION OF

CANADA LINE

G. Robertson: The Canadian Federation of Independent

Business released the shocking results of their Canada line construction impact

survey yesterday. The damage is irrefutable. The impacts on small businesses and

the families that own them are staggering — dozens of businesses closed, half of

the jobs in the corridor are lost, and tens of millions of dollars in losses for

the small business owners.

The denial stage is over. The blame game must stop. This is the

largest infrastructure project in B.C. history. Of course, the provincial

government has primary responsibility.

To the Finance Minister: will the government take urgent action to

compensate small business owners along the Canada line corridor?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member opposite knows full well, or

should know full well, that TransLink is responsible for mitigating any impacts

of this project. It is rather amazing to me that what this member wants to do,

for reasons that escape me — except for the fact that perhaps he wants to run

for mayor of Vancouver…. But that's another issue. It amazes me that the member

would expect the province, rather extraordinarily, to step up to the plate on a

project that is not our project — we are a major funding partner, but it is not

our project — and deal with this issue.

The fact of the matter is that TransLink is responsible for

mitigation. They came up with a multi-million-dollar plan, I understand, in

cooperation with the business owners. Apparently, they're saying that's not good

enough. It's their responsibility to figure out what mitigation is appropriate

for those affected businesses.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

G. Robertson: Well, the Transportation Minister has

literally been out to lunch on Cambie for a couple of years now.

[1420]

To the Finance Minister again: this government denied the impact

until a few short months ago, led by the Transportation Minister. In late July

the Finance Minister finally acknowledged the impact and cast doubts upon the

privatization scheme that her gov-

[ Page 8741 ]

ernment had insisted on for the project. Then she blamed TransLink, as the

Minister of Transportation has done.

It's no mystery that this project, from the beginning, was driven

by the Premier's office. This government even passed legislation specifically to

amend the GVTA Act for this project. The project simply would not be happening

if it hadn't been driven by this government.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just take your seat.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Do you want to finish?

G. Robertson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm heartened. Maybe

they are taking responsibility here.

Despite the unprecedented impact on these small businesses, none

of the funding partners are taking the lead on compensation for the small

business owners due to construction. Will the Finance Minister today commit to

leading the funding partners on compensation to these devastated merchants?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Taylor: The "Small Business" report, which was

referenced in the question, supports what many of us have been saying for some

time, and that is that the choice of construction method made by TransLink has

caused enormous disruption to some of the small business owners.

I have been — government has been — encouraging TransLink, since

it is their project…. They did name the independent board of Canada line. Since

they chose the method of cut-and-cover rather than burrowing, which had

initially been assumed to be happening, it is their project. They should step

forward.

They've already agreed to mitigation, because they set up business

committees. They gave $1 million directly and another couple of million to help

the small businesses, and it's time for TransLink now to stand up with this

report in hand and take action.

B. Ralston: The Minister of Finance is on her feet, but it

seems to me the cut-and-cover is her cutting and running from this question.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business asked a question

in their report that I'd like to pose to the minister. Is it okay to wreck a

business that someone has spent years building up and relies on to support a

family?

Hon. C. Taylor: When TransLink initially talked about the

project with many of the business owners — and I was in the community at that

time — the idea was that this would be done as a burrowed tunnel. When they in

fact decided to go to an RFP and chose the proponent, they chose the

cut-and-cover method.

Even at that time, there was a broad understanding in the

community that the cut-and-cover would be done three blocks at a time so that

the disruption would not be as long as it has turned out to be. TransLink, in

choosing the cut-and-cover method…. They would have to defend or say why they

chose that method, but it has resulted in enormous disruption along the line for

a lot of business owners.

I think that this recent "Small Business" report just is

additional material that TransLink should look at. They have already set up a

mitigation process. They should look at this material and sit down with the

businesses.

DISTRIBUTION OF BOOSTER SEATS

TO LOW-INCOME FAMILIES

C. Trevena: My question is for the Minister of State for

Childcare. Her government spent a quarter of a million dollars this year to

promote booster seats and child safety along with BCAA.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[1425]

C. Trevena: The money is going for a public education

campaign and to buy booster seats for low-income families. The BCAA obviously

wants as many low-income families as possible to get these seats, so it's

distributing them through MLA constituency offices. The only MLAs who got these

seats for distribution are Liberal MLAs.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. Trevena: My question to the minister is: how does she

justify using child safety for partisan ends?

Hon. L. Reid: I am pleased to tell you that we are a

government of partnership. I just happen to have in my hand the report of the

B.C. Family Resource Program, and I will read it to you.

"The B.C. Association of Family Resource Programs and its

membership would like to thank you for your consideration in including us in

this important campaign, the booster seat campaign report Boost B.C .

Included in this package is the formal report of all members of the B.C.

Association of Family Resource Programs who participated by forwarding their

requested booster-seat orders, their contact information and a breakdown of

requests region by region and community by community. Also included is a

synopsis of the feedback."

A very, very comprehensive report, and one that I'm happy to share

with the member opposite.

[ Page 8742 ]

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

C. Trevena: I do. My question to the minister was: did

these seats go to only Liberal MLA constituency offices?

Hon. L. Reid: Again, I am pleased to comment on the success

of the partnership. The B.C. Automobile Association….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Take your seat.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. L. Reid: I'm pleased to commit to the record the

partnership we had underway with the B.C. Automobile Association. They had a

number of dispatch points across the province, and I can tell you that 2,000

booster seats have indeed reached their way across British Columbia and are

today assisting 2,000 incredibly vulnerable families with the cost of the

purchase of a booster seat.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Farnworth: Well, judging from that answer, what is

pretty clear is that they only did go to Liberal MLA constituency offices, and

that's shameful. It also says that I don't think I'd want that minister in

charge of the distribution of defibrillators or wheelchairs.

My question to the minister is straightforward and clear. If she

is so confident in her report, if she is so confident that this was done fairly

and without partisanship, will she release a list of MLAs who received seats for

distribution, and will she release a list of groups who received seats from MLAs?

Commit to that in this House today.

Hon. L. Reid: Only the members opposite would somehow find

fault with the booster-seat campaign. Honestly.

In terms of the number of seats that have gone: for the Fraser

Valley, 345 seats; for the interior, 420 seats; for the northern region, 196

seats; for Vancouver coastal, 398 seats; for Vancouver Island, 390 seats. It

reached across the province of British Columbia.

Certainly, the partnership between the British Columbia Automobile

Association and the B.C. Association of Family Resource Programs is one that we

on this side of the House are intensely proud of.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: Only this government would use children's

safety as a partisan issue, and that is shameful. The minister will clearly not

answer what is the truth, which is that only Liberal MLAs received seats for

distribution.

So will she at least have the guts to table in this House the list

of MLAs that received seats for distribution and a list of the groups that got

those seats?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. L. Reid: I have a report of many pages, and indeed

distribution points include Tri-Cities Child Care Resource and Referral, Austin

Avenue in Coquitlam; Tri-City Family Place, 3435 Victoria Drive in Coquitlam.

[1430]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. L. Reid: There are distribution points across British

Columbia, and the program is going to keep children safe in the province.

Hundreds and hundreds of child deaths will be prevented as a result of this

incredibly important program.

Surely the members opposite can understand the importance of

keeping children safe.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. L. Reid: I would caution the members opposite that the

partnership between the B.C. Automobile Association and the B.C. Association of

Family Resource Programs does not deserve your censure.

[End of question period.]

G. Robertson: I rise to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

G. Robertson: I have over 2,000 signatures here today

calling for compensation for the Cambie small business owners.

J. Horgan: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

J. Horgan: I'm pleased to introduce a lunch date I had

today with a proud Métis from my constituency, who actually paid money to have

lunch with me and

[ Page 8743 ]

come and watch our display today. Would the House please welcome Earl

Belcourt.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call continued committee stage debate on

Bill 28, Securities Amendment Act, to be followed by continued second reading

debate on Bill 40.

Committee of the Whole House

SECURITIES AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 28; K.

Whittred in the chair.

The committee met at 2:35 p.m.

section 13 (continued).

L. Krog: We were completing this before the lunch

break. This section, just so I'm clear, as discussed previously will now apply,

as a result of the court decisions the Attorney General was talking about, to

any person anywhere who has dealings in British Columbia around the securities

exchange commission. Is that fair comment?

Hon. W. Oppal: The short answer is yes.

Sections 13 and 14 approved.

section 15.

L. Krog: This

section talks about documents that may be

records, information, etc., that may be reasonably required for a hearing. I'm

just wondering: is there any part of this that would apply, in fact, to a person

who may or may not be reasonably held to know that there's a hearing or a review

or an investigation coming?

In other words, if I know I'm doing something wrong but I'm not

aware I'm being investigated, and I'm not aware that anyone is out there looking

for it, but I destroy it…. Would this

section in fact apply to a person who

destroys it who didn't reasonably know that a hearing, review or examination is

to be conducted? It talks about "is to be conducted," so I assume that's

referring to the future tense.

Hon. W. Oppal: The member, I think, is making reference to

knowledge. Subsection (2) deals with that particular concern — that is, if the

person "knows or reasonably should know that a hearing, review, investigation,"

etc., is conducted.

I would assume from that that the doctrine of wilful blindness

would apply. In other words, the legislation is designed to catch those people

with actual knowledge and those persons who are reasonably expected to know.

L. Krog: I want to draw the Attorney General's attention to

the wording in subsection (2), which I do understand and have read. It talks

about "should know that a hearing, review, investigation, examination or

inspection is to be conducted" — not "may," which it seems to me is a term that

would encompass any knowledge of any wrongdoing at any time when you're talking

about a hearing that is to be conducted.

It seems to me you're really contemplating something

forward-looking as opposed to something that is both present, past and

forward-looking. In other words, "may," it seems to me, would be the appropriate

word.

Hon. W. Oppal: I think the logical

interpretation of this

section is that where a person has done something wrong or committed a

wrongdoing in the marketplace, and he or she is reasonably expected to believe

that whatever he or she has done is wrong, then under those circumstances it

would constitute an obstruction of justice to destroy documents that may be

relevant in proving whatever took place.

[1440]

L. Krog: I don't wish to belabour the point overly, but

with great respect to the Attorney General, language has meaning. Goodness knows

there are enough high-priced counsel in Vancouver who have been able to allow

people who by general standards would be regarded as scoundrels and crooks to

escape the purview and just deserts they'd receive under the securities exchange

commission.

It seems to me when you you use the language: "A person

contravenes subsection (1) if the person knows…." If the phrase was "person

knows, knew or ought to have known," and then used the term "may," it seems to

me that you would be covering off those people who are conscious of the fact

they're doing something wrong but don't reasonably expect a hearing.

Otherwise, I think some clever lawyer is going to stand up in the

securities exchange commission and convince the counsel that, in fact, you can't

get him for the past activities. You can only get him if they actually thought

they were going to get caught.

I think that is a loophole, with great respect. I want to point it

out to the Attorney General. I don't want to make bets in the chamber, but I

suspect that will be a defence at some point in the future. Having said that,

I'm happy to see the

section pass, but I think that's the case.

Section 15 approved.

section 16.

L. Krog:

Section 16 provides defences, essentially. I'm

wondering why the bill is providing defences for people who the Securities Act

is meant to literally catch. Why are we acknowledging defences for people

instead of letting the securities exchange commission accept what may be a

reasonable defence at law as opposed to statutorily creating a defence for

someone?

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, the

section recognizes a system of due

process. In other words, it's not a strict liability offence. So the

section

really is amended to

[ Page 8744 ]

add a defence against civil liability for a misrepresentation found in

forward-looking information that is clearly identified as forward-looking

information and a prospectus if there is a reasonable basis for it.

Now, this change is there to protect issuers and those responsible

for their disclosure from being held for forecast projections or statements that

merely turn out to be incorrect. The defence is similar to that defence that's

contained in the Ontario legislation. In other words, the import of this

section

is not to penalize those people who merely make inadvertent errors.

L. Krog: The whole point of the statute is to ensure that

business is conducted with certain standards, that investors can have assurances

that what they're investing in is appropriate. What this legislation is

essentially doing is ensuring that there is some kind of out, and, I would

argue, it is almost an encouragement to continue to use something beyond

salesmen's puffery.

In other words, if you can somehow generate some view that there's

an honest belief that you weren't doing anything wrong, and if you're still

trying to essentially sell something that isn't really deserving of the

qualities that you say it has, that's essentially what you're doing here. You're

providing a defence in a civil action which would otherwise not be the case.

It talks about if you use "reasonable cautionary language

identifying the forward-looking information," identifying material factors, etc.

Why, for heaven's sake, would we want to encourage anyone to use language to

induce people to invest in something that may well turn out to be, in fact, not

what is being sold?

Hon. W. Oppal: What this does is provide a defence for

those people who may provide information that may be incorrect due to no fault

of their own. It really deals with the reasonableness of the assumptions used at

the time of the making of the representations.

[1445]

In other words, assume for a minute that representations are made

in order to promote a stock, and some unforeseen incident takes place that

renders the forecasts or renders the assumptions incorrect by the benefit of

hindsight. Then this would provide a defence.

To put it in a nutshell, this means that in the vagaries of

business there are some things that are beyond the knowledge and beyond the

ability of the person to forecast as to what could take place in the future. It

addresses inadvertent errors that are made at the material time.

Section 16 approved.

section 17.

L. Krog: I'm not trying to rush this along unnecessarily,

but sections 17 and 18 both are designed, I gather, to harmonize with defences

available to civil actions in Ontario and bring us in line. I take it that this

brings us in line with other jurisdictions that have passed similar changes.

We are providing a set of statutory defences to civil actions at a

time when we're trying to create confidence in enforcement so that business and

investors can make investments in British Columbia with some assurance that

they're going to be protected from unscrupulous practitioners. Again, it

troubles me that that is the case.

If the Attorney General can confirm: does this bring us into line

with just Ontario, or does it bring us into line with the other provinces that

are attempting to bring a harmonized regime into being?

Hon. W. Oppal: There's no question that the philosophy or

the intent of the legislation is to protect investors. Having said that, if the

information turns out merely to be incorrect, then that will provide a defence.

The second part of the question relates to other jurisdictions. We

are harmonizing this with all jurisdictions including Ontario, which made the

same amendment when adding secondary market liability to its act.

Sections 17 to 19 inclusive approved.

section 20.

L. Krog: Arguably, this is the guts of this bill, I think

it fair to say. This is the creation of a civil remedy now for misleading

disclosures. This does not provide anything other, as I understand it, than the

right for a person aggrieved to bring a claim by way of a civil suit, presumably

in Supreme Court. Is that correct?

Hon. W. Oppal: The answer is yes.

L. Krog: I'm reasonably advised that counsel in Vancouver

now say that a suit under a hundred thousand isn't worth pursuing anymore, when

you look at the costs of doing so. I can't imagine how this provision really

represents some improvement in ensuring that business of this nature is

conducted properly in British Columbia.

Very few British Columbians, and an increasingly smaller

percentage of British Columbians, are going to be in a position to be able to

afford to hire counsel to pursue what is in fact a very narrow area of the law.

It requires complex litigation, a significant ability, in order to pursue these

kinds of claims through the court process.

[1450]

I realize the Attorney General is anxious, but I haven't quite

finished yet. All this

section is doing is saying: "Look, you can take your

matter to court. You can sue." Admittedly, that is arguably an improvement over

a situation where you don't have any recognized right to sue, but it is not

going to do anything to enhance the enforcement around the Securities Act

generally. It is not providing some stiffer penalty that might actually frighten

people.

If I'm an unscrupulous individual or working through some

corporation, I know that if I can bilk 300 investors of $100,000 each — so I've

gotten away with 30 million bucks — not one of those investors is going to go to

a lawyer in Vancouver and be told: "We've got an ironclad case, and it's a

hundred thousand bucks,

[ Page 8745 ]

but you know what? I don't care, because it's going to cost you too much to

pursue it."

That's an example I want to throw out to the Attorney General and

have him comment on, because that's really what we're talking about. Unless

you're a significant investor with a significant pool of cash to hire counsel,

this remedy is in fact empty.

Hon. W. Oppal: There are two ways of answering that. The

first is that 95 percent of the trading that takes place in secondary markets

takes place in the scenario that the member has made reference to. The concern

raised by the member is a good one, and that is access to the courts. Because 95

percent of the trades take place in an amount under $100,000, it is our view

that the market will be mindful of that fact, and the persons who are involved

in the business will be aware of this. This legislation will serve as a general

deterrence.

On the second part regarding access, the record of the B.C.

Securities Commission is strong. Over the past six years they've processed over

10,000 calls and opened 2,500 files. As far as a civil liability to a small

investor who has lost money and cannot afford to hire a lawyer is concerned,

which is a specific issue raised by the member opposite, the civil liability

framework will allow affected investors to join together in a class action for

misleading disclosure.

We are now seeing in the Supreme Court more and more class action

lawsuits. I would expect that a number of investors with a hundred thousand

dollars or less in losses will join together and commence class action lawsuits.

That's the real remedy for small investors.

L. Krog: With respect to what the Attorney General says, I

appreciate it, but it seems to me that the more appropriate step to have taken

on behalf of the government would be to strengthen the Securities Act generally

with respect to penalties, investigation and financing. My suspicion is that

this remedy, as I've said, will not in fact provide the kind of relief that is

expected.

Arguably, the very people who are most likely to be taken in are

the ones who will not be sophisticated investors — someone that is more easily

persuaded, if you will, to invest. You won't have a major investment firm

getting taken in. They know the reputation; they know the insiders; they know

how the marketplace operates, etc.

It will be the mom and pop from Kelowna who went to enhance their

retirement income and sank their savings into it. That's the kind of person who

you're leaving to pursue this civil remedy. They, again, will not have the

funding to pursue that kind of remedy.

I want to have the Attorney General's response to that.

Hon. W. Oppal: I can advise the member opposite that since

the end of 2006 in Ontario, four lawsuits have been started on a class action

basis under this section, which is similar to ours.

[1455]

L. Krog: I'm delighted to hear that four class action

lawsuits have been started in Ontario, but we're talking about a province of

roughly ten million people with the major exchange in the country, where

literally hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of shares are traded on a daily

basis. It strikes me that four class actions are not a significant amount. But I

don't wish to belabour the point.

Trying to deal with this in some logical order, as it's all

section 20, and going on to

section 140.2, it says that this part doesn't apply

to the purchase of security offered by a prospectus during the period of

distribution, the acquisition of an issuer's security pursuant to a distribution

that is exempt from

section 61, the acquisition or disposition, etc. I wonder if

the Attorney General can literally just explain: what sort of scenario does that

mean? I'm just an unsophisticated country lawyer, so I require his advice in

this.

Hon. W. Oppal: The

section does exclude specified

securities transactions from the remedies. An example would be that new remedies

do not apply to the purchase of a security offered by a prospectus or the

purchaser's sale of a security under a takeover or an issue or bid. Remedies

already exist for misrepresentation in a prospectus or a takeover bid or an

issuer bid discount. So it would be redundant to have further legislation on

that point.

L. Krog: Reviewing

section 140.3, this refers to the right

of a person to make claim against a number of parties: the responsible issuer,

each director, each officer, each influential person, each expert where, etc.

Again, is that the same language that has been used in Ontario and

other jurisdictions? If so, how long has that language been relied on in

jurisdictions? In other words, if we can, who's the father or the mother of the

language in the provincial system?

Hon. W. Oppal: The same remedies, a same section, came into

effect in Ontario early in 2006, and more recently in Alberta and Manitoba.

L. Krog: Going to

section 140.6, the liability is described

as being proportionate as opposed to joint and several. That's the way I

certainly read that section.

What it means, as I understand it — and the Attorney General, I'm

sure, will correct me if I'm wrong — is that if I am successful in my suit, but

the proportionate liability is, say, 75 percent to some individual or person who

has nothing in their pockets and 25 percent to someone who does, then

notwithstanding my moral victory in the courtroom, I will collect, if I'm lucky,

25 percent. I can kiss the other 75 percent goodbye. Is that correct?

[1500]

Hon. W. Oppal: The defendant is really held liable only for

the portion of damages caused by that defendant, unless the defendant acted

knowingly. Each defendant who acted knowingly is liable for the full amount of

the damages and can claim contributions from any other defendant or third party

who acted knowingly.

[ Page 8746 ]

What this does is modify the rule of joint and several liability

in certain circumstances. The provision is the same one that is in effect in

Ontario, Manitoba and Alberta.

L. Krog: My understanding is that if I'm found liable as

part of a group of, say, ten defendants, and I've done it knowingly, and I'm the

person with the deep pockets, then the plaintiff can collect from me entirely

and the other co-defendants can…. Then I can sue, if you will, the other

co-defendants or claim over — third-party them — for my contribution.

If I don't meet the test of knowing and it's just proportionate

liability because I'm at a lower standard, then what I said in my previous

question would, in fact, apply. If it's proportionate and 75 percent is

apportioned to the defendant with no pockets, nothing in their jeans, then I'm

going to be out 75 percent of my judgment. The person who has got deep pockets,

and I'm successful against them, is liable for 25 percent of the portion. I'll

collect that.

Is my understanding and the scenario I've just outlined, in fact,

correct?

Hon. W. Oppal: The answer is yes.

L. Krog: Then my point is…. What it means is that instead

of encouraging parties involved in a scheme to sell, to be very scrupulous about

who they're working in conjunction with, I can be a little slack because if I'm

innocent and I don't know, I'm not going to be held to that higher standard. In

other words, there's not going to be an incentive for persons working in

conjunction to ensure that their business partners, if you will — or their

co-conspirators more likely….

There's not going to be an incentive for me to ensure I'm working

with honest and decent and respectable people, because it's only if I've got

knowledge, if I know that I'm going to be held to the higher standard and be

stuck, potentially, with the full bill, even though I'm the one with the deep

pockets,

whereas if I'm fairly innocent and don't investigate thoroughly, then I

may be only held liable for the proportionate amount.

Hon. W. Oppal: I think you have to look at subsection (2)

that states:

"Despite subsection (1), where, in an action under

section

140.3 in respect of a misrepresentation or a failure to make timely disclosure,

a court determines that a particular defendant, other than the responsible

issuer, authorized, permitted or acquiesced in the making of the

misrepresentation or the failure to make timely disclosure while knowing it to

be a misrepresentation or a failure to make timely disclosure, the whole amount

of the damages assessed in the action may be recovered from that defendant."

The word "may" gives the court some discretion in

determining the outcome based on the particular fairness of the case.

L. Krog: I appreciate what the Attorney General is saying.

But, again, if I'm a somewhat innocent investor, and I know that George, who is

a respected member of the business community, is involved in this company, and

I'm relying on him, and I can't prove that George knew one of his business

partners was unscrupulous, then I've got no guarantee that George who has the

deep pockets is the one I can recover from.

[1505]

Because his unscrupulous partner takes me in too, and I've been

innocent, if I'm George, I'm not going to have a remedy as a plaintiff,

essentially, in this — that's what I'm saying — or I'm going to have a

proportionate remedy as opposed to a full remedy, which is what pure,

straightforward joint and several liability would afford me.

Hon. W. Oppal: I think perhaps the best way of approaching

this is to…. This a balanced remedy, a balanced approach, if you will. What this

does is it means that responsible directors or responsible officers would not be

willing to serve on these boards and would not be held liable for actions of a

third party without their knowledge — keeping in mind the wording of subsection

(2).

L. Krog: Moving on to page 20 of

section 20,

part 140.91,

the restriction on discontinuous action. I'm just wondering: what's the point of

this section? What remedy is it designed to provide?

Hon. W. Oppal: This restriction, if you will, isn't

different from other actions that may be dismissed. What it does is provide

certain conditions under which an action may be dismissed or discontinued. It

states that it may only be discontinued, abandoned or settled with the approval

of the court and on the terms a court considers appropriate.

It is intended to prevent settlements that would be out of

proportion to the evidence of misconduct and discourage actions without merit

from being brought. When deciding whether the court ought to grant leave, the

court is required to consider certain factors about the misconduct that has been

brought under the act. This requirement is intended to preserve the integrity of

the caps on damage.

L. Krog: If we can just go back to 140.8 on page 19. My

reading of this is that you can't start such an action unless you have leave of

the court. In other words, I can't just go into my lawyer's office…. Assuming I

do have deep pockets and can afford to commence this litigation, I have to go to

court and ask for leave in order to commence the action. I read it to refer to

what is essentially the whole remedial

section of this bill, which is liability

for secondary market disclosure.

I just wonder if the Attorney General can confirm that that's the

case. In other words, it's not like an ordinary lawsuit. I have to get leave

first, and if I get leave, then I can proceed.

Hon. W. Oppal: Yes, leave would be needed. This really

prevents an action from being commenced

[ Page 8747 ]

without leave of the court and is intended to prevent actions without merit

from being brought in. It protects the defendants. It's the old "Frivolous and

vexatious"

section that's there now in the Supreme Court rules.

[1510]

L. Krog: When courts have legislation in front of them,

they take direction from that legislation. They follow; they interpret. The

provisions relating to frivolous and vexatious actions…. The last time I checked

they were still in the Supreme Court rules. That remedy is still available for

anyone commencing an action in British Columbia.

It strikes me that when this Legislature includes a specific

provision related to this newly created statutory right, you in fact are

expanding, if you will, the blockades to someone commencing an action. In other

words, you're putting one more procedural roadblock in front of what the

Attorney General is telling us today is a new remedy which is good for business

and good for investment. I mean, this is an extra roadblock to bringing an

action that I would submit is already covered by the Supreme Court rules.

I just want to hear the Attorney General tell me if I'm wrong or

right, and I'm always delighted to hear whether I'm wrong or right.

Hon. W. Oppal: This

section is really there to create a

balance. In fairness to those people who may be defendants, it prohibits an

action from being commenced without leave of the court, if the defendant is

frivolous, particularly in this era of contingency fee agreements. It's

protection against frivolous lawsuits.

I recognize that the rules in the Supreme Court allow for a

similar remedy, but the fact is that we are harmonizing our legislation with

other provinces, and other provinces have this same provision.

L. Krog: I come back to, and I won't belabour much longer,

my point about the type of plaintiffs who will be discouraged by this. This is

just one more roadblock. I'm already a dope. I gave you my half-million bucks, I

gave you my life-savings, and now, you know, some bigwig down in Vancouver on

Howe Street in an ivory tower tells me: "Oh, by the way, I can't even sue the

guys who snookered you last week unless I get specific leave. This is just a

special protection that the Legislature of British Columbia passed to protect

these guys who have been operating in this province year after year."

I mean, this isn't like suing neighbour George for coming on to my

property and cutting down a few trees. In order to go after the big guys, the

big shysters and the big crooks, I've got to go into court and ask for specific

leave to get to them. That's what this

section is saying.

I think the Attorney General needs to understand that frankly, I

suspect, for the average British Columbian who has been ripped off, this is not

going to be a very palatable bit of advice to receive from a lawyer who they

already probably can't afford because they've given all their money to this

unscrupulous character anyway.

Hon. W. Oppal: It's not intended to protect shysters and

all of those people who have wrongfully defrauded people from their money. This

is to protect legitimate corporations or legitimate people who raise money on

the market, to protect them against frivolous lawsuits.

It's a remedy for fairness. Nobody is suggesting for a minute that

people who have legitimate claims will fit into this category.

[1515]

L. Krog: I appreciate what the Attorney General has to say.

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada herself has made it clear that

the costs of litigation are becoming so prohibitive that Canadians can't afford

to pursue civil remedies.

The whole premise of this is to add a new civil remedy. On one

hand, you've given us a civil remedy, which I suggest is too weak anyway. It

should be statutory. Its enforcement should be through the Securities

Commission. On one hand, you give us a civil remedy, and on the other hand, you

put another legal roadblock in front of it when I'm already in a loss position.

The Attorney General can profess to believe that this is designed

to protect — how shall I say? — honest people, honest directors, but the fact is

it will be used by high-priced legal talent, many of whom appeared in front of

him when he was a judge. It will be used by them to defend unscrupulous

individuals and keep ordinary plaintiffs away from the remedy. That's the way I

read it.

The one thing that gives me some comfort in this is

section 140.92

on page 20. It says: "The commission may intervene in an action…and in an

application for leave under

section 140.8."

Do I take it that that would give the power to the Securities

Commission to step in as a plaintiff on behalf of individuals? Or how is that

section intended to operate?

Hon. W. Oppal: I don't know if I can say anything more

useful to the first part of the question raised by the member opposite, except

to say that I think we have to give some credit to the persons — that is, the

judges — before whom these applications will be brought that they'll be able to

recognize the difference between a legitimate lawsuit and a frivolous lawsuit.

We do that now, and I think we have to place some faith in the judges that

they'll make the appropriate orders.

As far as the second part of the question is concerned — the power

of the commission — the answer to that is yes, 140.92 would permit the

commission to intervene in any action under the expanded liability provisions,

and they would intervene in their role as a regulator of disclosure and as a

defender of the public interest. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has

a right to appear in similar actions in the United States.

Sections 20 to 25 inclusive approved.

section 26.

[ Page 8748 ]

L. Krog: Just so I'm clear, the bill notes talk about it

clarifying "the intent currently reflected in the Act," and that it "is

consequential…." But my understanding is that it removes provisions preventing

an individual from withholding, destroying, concealing or refusing to give or

produce any record.

Is that to follow on the previous provisions in the bill that

we've reviewed today? Or is this in fact a weakening, if you will, of the

statute by removing a prohibition that would otherwise continue to exist?

Hon. W. Oppal: Yes, it's now replaced by the new

section

57.5.

Section 26 approved.

section 27.

L. Krog: The answer, I trust, on my question on

section 26

would be the same as for

section 27. Is that fair to say? In other words, it's

been replaced?

Hon. W. Oppal: The answer is yes.

[1520]

Sections 27 to 47 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. W. Oppal: I move the committee rise and report the

bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:21 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

SECURITIES AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

Bill 28, Securities Amendment Act, 2007, reported complete without

amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. B. Penner: I call continued second reading debate of

Bill 40, Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement Act.

Second Reading of Bills

TSAWWASSEN FIRST NATION

FINAL AGREEMENT ACT

(continued)

H. Bains: First of all, right at the outset, I must say

how proud and honoured I feel to stand here to speak in support of this treaty.

First, I will take this opportunity to congratulate the Tsawwassen people and

Chief Kim Baird, who was with us right through the debate, for being able to

negotiate a deal that they believe will bring a brighter future and will pave a

path for future generations to achieve their goals in life.

Although it took them 14 long years, I do have to say that I have

the feeling of pride and optimism for the future of the Tsawwassen people. It's

something that they deserve and was long overdue.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

I just hope that the other first nations waiting to have their

treaties concluded do not have to go through such a long and arduous journey as

the Tsawwassen people went through. It will be a proud day not only for the

Tsawwassen people but for all British Columbians when this treaty is finally

ratified in this House and in Ottawa and comes into effect.

I commend the Tsawwassen people and Chief Kim Baird for

negotiating hard and fairly to resolve longstanding issues of

self-determination, land ownership and economic independence for themselves.

They can now control their own destiny and look forward to a future with full

knowledge that they will have a real and effective say in shaping their

community for themselves and their future generations.

The Tsawwassen treaty makes history by becoming the first treaty

to be successfully concluded under the B.C. treaty process.

I want to talk not so much about what's in the treaty but rather

how we got here. I want to talk about the destructive role this Premier and the

government played when he was in opposition and then as Premier in treaty

negotiations. In opposing the Nisga'a treaty, some of the most poisonous and

vitriolic comments came out of this Premier's mouth and from other Liberal

members of this caucus. They are….

Deputy Speaker: Member. Order, please. I remind you that

the topic we are discussing here is the treaty at hand.

H. Bains: That's exactly what I'm going to talk about. I'm

leading to how we got here, as I said originally.

Some of the poisonous and vitriolic comments…

Deputy Speaker: Order, Member.

H. Bains: …that came from this Premier…

Deputy Speaker: Order, member.

H. Bains: …and the other Liberal members are on record.

[1525]

Deputy Speaker: Order, Member. Member, your comments are

unparliamentary. Will you please direct your comments at the issue that is being

debated.

H. Bains: I withdraw those comments.

[ Page 8749 ]

No wonder it took seven years since the Nisga'a to negotiate

another treaty — the Tsawwassen treaty that is before us. Seven years ago the

Nisga'a people made history by concluding the first modern treaty in B.C.

history.

I say with pride that both the Nisga'a treaty and the B.C. treaty

process were the accomplishment of NDP governments. The Nisga'a treaty — as I

said, a treaty fiercely opposed by many of the B.C. Liberal members, including

their leader, the current Premier — was negotiated and ratified under the NDP

governments of Mike Harcourt and Glen Clark.

The B.C. treaty process was put in place by the government of

Premier Mike Harcourt. If it weren't for that process and the vision of those

NDP governments, we wouldn't be here today preparing to ratify the Tsawwassen

treaty. I can proudly support this treaty and at the same time acknowledge the

important role of successive New Democratic governments in making it a reality.

When I first entered this hall — the great hall, the chamber

representing democracy in this province — I felt proud and fortunate that my

constituents put faith in me to bring their issues to this House and to be their

voice in this House where decisions affecting their lives are made. They sent me

here to participate in debates and help pass legislation that would help improve

everyday lives of our citizens.

At the same time, I would also have the opportunity to stand and

oppose legislation brought before us that, in my mind, will not work for my

constituents. I will engage in debates to help establish and enshrine rights for

our citizens — that they never had or were taken away from them by previous

governments — and to ensure that every member of the society benefits from the

resources of this province, where no one is left behind.

While I was excited by this enormous opportunity to make a

difference in the lives of my constituents and British Columbians, I must say

that I also had time to reflect back on the history of this House and decisions

made by those who occupy the chairs before us — some very recent decisions where

workers' democratic rights were stripped away by this Premier and the Liberal

government, and in other cases, decisions made long before us, like hundreds of

years ago. It reminded me of some of the dark pages and blights in the

decision-making history of this House, which otherwise had a proud tradition.

It reminded me of people who sat in these chairs and debated

legislation that dealt with issues such as whether certain members of our

society should be treated equally or not, whether they should have the same

democratic rights as the rest of us. For example, should they be allowed to

purchase properties in certain parts of certain cities, or can they practise in

their chosen professions? Are they allowed to continue to own properties that

were passed on to them by their ancestors for generations? Can they even keep

their own children with them?

It's sad to know that, judging from the written records of these

decisions in this House, for whatever reason, those who were here before us

decided that certain members of our society will have fewer rights than others.

Both political parties of the day, Liberals and Conservatives,

while deciding on those very important issues, took the positions based on what

was popular to stay in power or to pave a path to power rather than making a

decision based on what was right. Decisions were made in these very chambers to

deny for decades the right to vote to aboriginal people, Chinese, Japanese,

people from India and other people of colour.

[1530]

After decades of struggle, Chinese, Japanese and people from India

were given the right to vote, but our native population was still not considered

equal and was not afforded the same right until some ten years later in the late

'50s. Although members of different communities were denied some of the very

basic, fundamental democratic rights in this House, first nations suffered for

much, much longer and endured pains of greater magnitude. In fact, they were

made to suffer for generations.

They suffered systemic denial and forced-through legislation of

their very basic existence for generations. They were made landless in their own

homes. They were separated from their children. And the list goes on.

When I listened to this Premier's diatribes during the Nisga'a

treaty, I asked myself: has much changed? The answer is very clear.

Deputy Speaker: Order, Member. I caution you once again

about the tone of the language that you are using when addressing this bill. I

remind you that we're talking about Bill 40, the Tsawwassen treaty.

H. Bains: While preparing for this speech, I logged on to

one of the websites of the Tsawwassen people, and I came across some writings

where they are trying to express their feelings, describing the profound, long

and lasting effects that the historical denial of their rights has left on this

community. I would like to read part of that to put it on record, to give us a

flavour of what these people went through for generations and continue to

suffer.

It goes like this:

"Like many first nations, after the arrival of Europeans

our ancestors were devastated by epidemics of smallpox. Historians estimate that

between 80 and 90 percent of the Coast Salish were killed by the disease,

decimating some Tsawwassen villages.

"Over the years, as the colony of British

Columbia

grew and prospered, the Tsawwassen people, like other first nations, were

systematically stripped of their land, rights and resources. In 1887 Premier

William Smithe said: 'When the white man first came among you, you were little

better than wild beasts of the field.' Little wonder that this kind of racism

was soon translated into narrow policies that plunged the province into a

century of darkness for the Tsawwassen and other first nations.

"Simply put, our land was stolen. In 1851 the

international border took Point Roberts and parts of Washington State away from

the Tsawwassen people without consultation, without compensation.

[ Page 8750 ]

"Meanwhile Tsawwassen lands were pre-empted.

Settler families were given huge tracts of land. In 1874 our reserve was

expanded to 490 acres, but still a postage stamp–sized piece of land compared to

our original traditional territory. By 1890 about 40,000 acres of land

surrounding us had been developed by our non-aboriginal neighbours.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

"The B.C. Ferry terminal construction started in 1958.

During causeway construction, the B.C. government tore down our longhouse. The

terminal and causeway were expanded in 1973. In 1976 and again in 1991 the

provincial government of the day did not bother to meaningfully consult with the

Tsawwassen people.

"Construction on the Roberts Bank

superport began

in 1968. By 1983 it had become a 113-hectare island with a B.C. Rail line

running along the causeway. Operating around the clock, the facility handled 24

trains each day. Light and sound pollution, excessive noise and vibration are a

constant nuisance to the Tsawwassen people.

"The B.C Ferry terminal and the port —

massive

industrial operations that include a man-made island terminal and a causeway

linking them to the mainland — have virtually destroyed our beaches, creating a

stagnant bay choked with invasive, non-indigenous plants and seaweed. Once a

productive habitat teeming with crabs, clam and many other shellfish, the bay is

today a dead body of water with nearly no tidal wash.

"Contaminants in the water include such

aggressive

plant species as Japanese eelgrass and Spartina angelica, which competes

with indigenous eelgrass species for nutrients and sunlight. In this stagnant

water harmful algae, also known as red tide, often bloom."

[1535]

Madam Speaker, you can see the permanent scars of pains left on

this community when you read this from their website. For a community that

suffered for so long and so deeply…. I'm so proud and glad that I'm coming from

one of the groups that I mentioned earlier, who once was also denied the right

to vote, and will be able to play a

part in restoring the rights of those that

have been neglected and denied basic human rights and equality. This treaty goes

a long way to achieving that for the Tsawwassen people.

But I want to talk about a couple of concerns that I have. While I

support this treaty, I must say that there are some very serious and troubling

issues that I'd like to talk about. We must question why it is that seven long

years have elapsed between the Nisga'a treaty and the Tsawwassen treaty. This

assembly needs to reflect on how this treaty and many other treaties in B.C.

were delayed unnecessarily by the Liberal Party, both during their days in

opposition and in government. I believe we could have concluded this treaty much

sooner if it had not been for the cynical and reckless tactics employed by this

Premier over the years.

Sadly, the costs of that delay have been borne primarily by

aboriginal people, who have been waiting for treaties to help them escape the

conditions in which they were forced to live.

The other issue we need to examine is the ALR, which has

wide-ranging and disturbing implications. The issue of how this government came

to remove 207 hectares of land from the agricultural land reserve in order to

conclude this treaty….

This Premier's action both during the opposition days and as

Premier caused a grave hurt to our first nations population. His divisive

comments during the Nisga'a treaty can still be heard within the walls of this

House and outside. Here are some of those comments.

"There is no question we are creating a whole new third order of

government. We are creating new rights. We are entrenching inequality based on

race," the Premier was quoted in the Vancouver Sun . Then he went on to

say: "If the Nisga'a have a right to vote through referendum, it seems

appropriate to me that all the rest of us should have the right to vote through

referendum as well."

Their Aboriginal Affairs critic wasn't to be outdone by this

Premier and was just as harsh and destructive in his comments. He went on to

say: "The Liberal government won't ratify another treaty until we receive

instructions from people." No wonder it took us seven years since the last

treaty was negotiated.

The Premier went on to say: "This will establish a precedent for

dozens of other gated communities."

Point of Order

Hon. J. Les: Point of order, Madam Speaker. The member is

not addressing Bill 40. I would ask that you call him to order.

Deputy Speaker: Member, to remind you that you should keep

your comments to the bill.

Debate Continued

H. Bains: I just want to talk about how I support Bill 40

and the treaty that is before us, and I want to talk about how we got here.

The Premier continued to say that it is a vision for treaties that

will carve up our province into 50 or 60 gated communities forever divided by

ethnicity and culture.

Point of Order

Hon. J. Les: A point of order, Madam Speaker. You have just

cautioned the member opposite that he is not addressing Bill 40. I would ask

that you bring him into order.

Deputy Speaker: Member, please keep your comments to the

bill and refrain from becoming personal.

Debate Continued

H. Bains: I just want to talk about the positions of

different people, how we support this treaty and how we got here.

[1540]

On the one hand, we see the Premier say how he's proud and wants

to do the reconciliation but on the

[ Page 8751 ]

other hand continues to talk about…. When you look at what this Premier's

actions were, whether this Premier is actually serious about reconciliation…. He

went on to say: "We have now retained counsel and will be pressing our case in

court. We will do what we must, make government live within the letter of the

law and our Canadian constitution, because this is our province, our future, our

constitution, and our…."

Point of Order

Hon. R. Neufeld: Point of order. Actually, we can either

get through this debate in a reasonable way, I think…. I know it's important to

each one of us, regardless of which side of the House we stand on. But the issue

before us is Bill 40.

The issue before us is to discuss Bill 40. The issues that the

member is talking about are far removed from Bill 40. Madam Speaker, I would

hope that the member — I know he means well — would stay to the discussion at

hand, which is Bill 40.

Deputy Speaker: Member, you are to keep your remarks to the

bill. You are on the borderline of being critical of another member, so would

you please keep your comments to the bill.

H. Bains: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: Sorry, Member. Just to be clear: making

personal comments about a member.

Debate Continued

H. Bains: I would not make personal comments against any

member of this House, but I will talk about what's on record, and it is in the

Hansard .

Madam Speaker, I just wanted to talk about how we got here so that

we have this treaty that we are debating and we will be voting on. I will be

supporting that. I just want to talk about…. Some members of this House made

some comments to bring us to where we are today.

The member went on to say that the agreement looked like it's

going to entrench some things that are anathema to Canadians. We are going to

have people that are on reserve lands, are on treaty lands who are not going to

have rights to vote for government, for taxation, for laws that they are going

to be governed by.

Another member continued to say, on the ratification of the

Nisga'a land claim agreement, that it will not be a rubber stamp. The people

don't want special status created in British Columbia.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Point of order. Look, I've tried to be as

polite as I possibly can. But the member tends to actually go back to his notes.

I would hope that by now he could actually deliver a speech without having to

read all the notes and stay pertinent to Bill 40, as he should stay.

A. Dix: Just in response….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me.

[1545]

A. Dix: Just in response to the point of order. Aside from

the really inappropriate use of points of order to interrupt speeches on very

important issues, I make this point.

When you're discussing the Nisga'a final agreement and the

Tsawwassen agreement, which share so many commonalities — and perhaps if and

when the minister reads the treaty, he might discover those — and if you look at

the commonalities point by point, paragraph by paragraph, you'll see that one

had some inspiration for the other.

It is totally in order at second reading to make those points, to

make those debates and to talk about how we came here. For the Minister of

Energy to interrupt consistently a speaker in this House with these points is

simply out of order in its own right.

H. Bains: Here's another quote: "This is a new, third order

of government. There is no government in Canada, other than the one proposed in

the Nisga'a treaty, that establishes a new government which paramounts powers

over provincial and federal government in various areas of jurisdiction." He

continued on: "There's no municipal government in Canada that can make laws that

are paramount over federal and provincial laws. That's what the Nisga'a

government can do."

The point I'm making is that both of these treaties are built on

the same basic principles. If they were wrong then, they are wrong now; if they

were right then, they are right now.

He continued on to say that it's a vision for treaties that will

carve up our province — 50, 60 gated communities, on and on and on.

Here is what the previous critic for Forests said: "Right now

expectations of some first nations are through the roof. I think their

expectations will come down under a B.C. Liberal government."

The critic for Aboriginal Affairs at that time said that Canadian

taxpayers will continue to be submitting upwards of $35 million a year, and

there will be no accountability for those taxpayers. "There are reasons for

concern. It's a big chunk of change. It will be taxpayers who end up footing the

bill."

Member after member continued to talk against the Nisga'a, talk

against the same principle that we are talking about here. That just talks about

their integrity and their record. I'd like to put it on here.

For years this Premier and his party steered a course of wilful

and knowing obstruction of the treaty-making process in British Columbia. One

would ask: why would they do that? Did they do so on principle? Did they do so

because they genuinely believed their actions would lead to a better outcome for

aboriginal people in B.C.? No, they did not. They did so because they saw

demonizing treaties, and the Nisga'a treaty in particular, as a convenient way

to pave their path to power — clearly a case of politics by demagoguery.

[ Page 8752 ]

R. Hawes: Madam Speaker, last Thursday I rose to speak in

the House. You corrected me on numerous occasions to bring me back to speaking

about the treaty.

I've been listening, and this is so far away from the treaty —

much further than I strayed. I was corrected repeatedly. I'm wondering, Madam

Speaker, if there is going to be a correction coming for this member, who is

straying so far from the treaty. Could he be brought back into line?

Deputy Speaker: Member, take your seat, please.

I have been listening to both sides of the debate, and I have been

listening over time to both sides of the debate. The debate is to be on the

treaty and on the bill. I'm listening, and I am assuming the responsibility for

the debate, and the debate is within those parameters.

Hon. Member, just like I asked you to keep to the bill, I'm asking

the member to keep to the bill.

[1550]

H. Bains: Madam Speaker, if their own positions weren't

enough, they went on to hire Mr. Martyn Brown as a special adviser, who was the

executive director of the Citizens Voice on Native Claims. The Citizens Voice

styled itself a grass-roots movement, but it was no such thing.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Point of order. Actually referring to

people that work for government in talking about Bill 40 in the manner that the

member is, is not in tune with what you, Madam Speaker, just said. The member

should stay to Bill 40. That's the debate that's ongoing now, not Martyn Brown,

who has no ability to defend himself in this House about something that happened

during the Nisga'a agreement.

M. Farnworth: On the point of order, I'd like to remind the

Chair, and I'd like to remind this House, that second reading debate is

traditionally wide-ranging, that comments and quotes from this House are very

much part of the topic for debate in the context of legislation — in fact, have

always been that way. We may not like the quotes, but they are part of the

debate process in this House. As long as quotes are relevant to the bill, then

they are perfectly in order.

As well, hon. Speaker, the mention of the names of individuals, as

long as they are not members of this House, is also perfectly in order in the

debate.

H. Bains: The Citizens Voice styled itself a grass-roots

movement, but it was no such thing. It was created by deep-pocketed and

influential individuals who deeply opposed the Nisga'a treaty. Some of them

happened to be the friends of this government.

This Premier and Mr. Martyn Brown together mounted one of the most

distorted and nakedly political campaigns of fearmongering this province has

ever seen. They did so in full knowledge that their claims were not true. They

did so….

Point of Order

Hon. J. Les: Madam Speaker, I fail to see one iota of

relevance to Bill 40 in the member's comments. Bring him to order, please.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member, you are dangerously close to a

personal attack. I would ask that you refrain from going that close and keep to

the order of the bill.

Debate Continued

H. Bains: What was the reason behind this? I think they saw

a political opportunity in dividing British Columbians. The Premier and many of

the Liberal members who sit in this chamber today saw nothing wrong with

sacrificing the treaty process and aboriginal people to their political gains.

Who has borne the brunt of this cynical, exploitive strategy? It

was the aboriginal people. It was the first nations of British Columbia.

Deputy Speaker: Member, I think that you need to be very

careful.

[1555]

J. Kwan: Madam Speaker, I just want to raise this point for

your consideration.

As we know, Bill 40 is a very important piece of legislation

before us. As we know, it took many years for the aboriginal people, for the

Tsawwassen people, to bring this bill to this floor where we can actually engage

in this debate and, hopefully, see it finalized — which I have no doubt we'll

see.

I also want to just simply make this point: without visiting the

history of the past, the long journey in which aboriginal people fought for

justice so that we can have this bill in this House, we would be doing injustice

to the debate of the bill. I just want to bring that to the House's attention.

H. Bains: It was the aboriginal people, the first nations

of this province, who bore the brunt of this cynical strategy. These are the

people for whom treaties represent a genuine opportunity to escape from the

conditions in which they were forced to live, to escape from the walls and

burden of the Indian Act and from the daily hopelessness and despair. Yet the

Premier saw fit to undertake a deliberate political strategy that would delay

their aspirations.

I want to talk about…. I had a long list of what our aboriginal

people actually go through on a daily basis, the kind of life that they live. I

will not go through it, but there are a couple of things that I want to mention

here, and you have heard those lists read here in this House by other members.

[ Page 8753 ]

Aboriginal people, on average, live seven years less than the rest

of the population. Aboriginal infant mortality rates run between two and four

times the average of non-aboriginals. These statistics make you sad and make you

angry.

The Premier and the B.C. Liberals used every method at their

disposal to delay the treaties, using the Nisga'a people as their scapegoats.

First, they mounted a campaign of distortions and fearmongering. They claimed

that the Nisga'a treaty would create a third order of government, in violation….

Hon. J. Les: Point of order.

Madam Speaker, for what must be close to the umpteenth time, I

rise on a point of order. The member is not addressing Bill 40. He is clearly

launching a personal attack.

M. Farnworth: That's not a point of order. It's a

difference of opinion on matters that have occurred in the past around debate.

As I pointed out a moment ago on a point of order, debate is wide-ranging on

second reading, and it is perfectly legitimate to visit past debates in this

House as they relate to current legislation. As long as they are relevant to the

bill and the principle of the bill, they're perfectly in order.

Deputy Speaker: Members, I've been listening very carefully

to the debate, and I'm monitoring the debate. In second reading there is a wide

range that you can take the discussion to, but I am monitoring very carefully

that we don't go on to personal attacks by members.

H. Bains: They claimed that the Nisga'a treaty would create

a third order of government in violation of the constitution, despite the fact

that no credible constitutional expert could be found to back them up.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

If they were right then, the question arises: is the Tsawwassen

treaty creating a third order of government today, and is it in violation of the

constitution? They knew the answer then, just as they know now. Nisga'a didn't

then, and Tsawwassen doesn't now. The Premier and the B.C. Liberals claim that

the non-members of the Nisga'a.…

Mr. Speaker: Member, just take your seat for a second.

This has gone on and on with points of order from both sides. Now,

either you're going to bring your comments relevant to the treaty, or you're not

going to continue.

[1600]

It is important that we understand that we're dealing with the

Tsawwassen treaty. We're not dealing with the Nisga'a treaty. As the Opposition

House Leader indicated, there is a broad range that is allowed in second

reading, but the broad range does not extend to the extent that you have gone

to.

I will let you continue, but if I stop you again, that will be the

last time.

H. Lali: I seek a point of clarification, if I may. This

House has a lot of history. Also, the rules that are governed by how we speak or

how we govern ourselves are actually instituted by the members here in this

chamber, and we work on a lot of tradition. There's a lot of convention that has

gone on before us, and most notably is the precedent that has been set before

us.

So if we look at the Nisga'a treaty, which is a precursor to this

in terms of how a debate was organized here in this chamber, I would ask the

hon. Speaker to keep in mind that there was a lot of latitude and wide-ranging

debate allowed as a part of the Nisga'a treaty that was put forward in this

House in 1998.

Members opposite — there are at least a dozen of them here in this

chamber today who were present at that time — talked at great lengths about so

many things that were actually not a part of the Nisga'a treaty but had some

wide-ranging debate relevance attached to them.

I would ask the Speaker to keep that in mind and provide some

clarification that the comments that the member is making are no different from

the comments that members opposite made when they were on this side of the House

when they debated the same treaty based on the rules that were set by this

House. Precedence has already been set, hon. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I want to remind the member that I reprimanded

a member of the government side last week, or earlier this week, about straying

off from where it was. Yes, there were lots of members that were here

previously. But we are dealing with the Tsawwassen treaty, and that is where

we're going to focus. We're not going to broad-range so far out that we start on

personal attacks.

So I'll allow the member to continue. But as I've warned you, if I

ask you again, it will be the last time.

H. Bains: There are some major concerns, as I said, and one

of them is removal of land from the ALR. It is the unilateral removal of 207

hectares of prime farmland out of the agricultural land reserve. Essentially,

this government has done an end run around the Agricultural Land Commission Act,

the legislation that protects farmland in B.C.

That legislation, by the way, was enacted by this government in

2002 and represented a weakened version of the old Agricultural Land Reserve

Act, the Land Reserve Commission Act and the Soil Conservation Act. The old

legislation was weakened at the behest of the government's developer friends,

who seem intent on paving over every last hectare of the lower mainland.

But even with weakened legislation, they knew they could never

remove the land we are discussing here today. For those with influence,

contributors to the government party, friends and so on, there will be a new

process. Developers will know they need only come up with a persuasive set of

special circumstances,

[ Page 8754 ]

and they will get their wish. They will rightly anticipate a hearing from

their friends in the government caucus, in cabinet and in the Premier's office

that will be, in their view, more than fair.

This is truly the thin end of the wedge, and it is a grave concern

to the New Democratic caucus and me. If the government insists on going this

route, I would implore the Premier to make sure their solution is subject to a

full and frank public debate.

Another aspect of this I want to cover is how nicely the

government's action dovetails with their grandiose Gateway project. Everybody

knows that land is needed to further develop Deltaport as part of the Gateway.

The government also knew it could never get away with nakedly removing the land

for that purpose, so it chose the back door, using the treaty as a pretext.

[1605]

I do not deny the Tsawwassen people the right to land under the

treaty. Far from it. I also do not deny them the right to use those lands as

they see fit — subject, of course, to applicable law. But I can't help feeling

that the Tsawwassen people are being used by this government to push on with a

project that is of far more importance to them than the Tsawwassen people or any

other first nations in B.C. — namely, their version of progress.

All of this makes you wonder why Tsawwassen was chosen as a

breakthrough table when government was prioritizing which treaty to pursue most

vigorously. Why choose a table that has such a problematic issue as the major

stumbling block to completion? The answer, of course, is obvious. Their priority

wasn't the treaty with Tsawwassen per se; it was the expansion of Deltaport. The

Tsawwassen treaty was merely a means to that end.

I have serious doubts that the Tsawwassen would have a treaty

today if it weren't for Deltaport. I don't blame the Tsawwassen people. They

wanted a negotiated treaty, and they deserve one. I blame this government, which

once again displayed its base cynicism in its dealing with the first nations.

Once again, this government has betrayed its utter lack of principle. Once

again, this government has demonstrated where its priorities lie.

In conclusion, there is much to celebrate today as we in this

chamber move to ratify this treaty. I wish the Tsawwassen people and Chief Kim

Baird great success in making this treaty work to build a better future for

themselves and their children. I share in their delight at finally having a

chance to get out from under the oppressive weight of the Indian Act.

H. Lali: I rise to take my place in the debate on Bill 40,

on the Tsawwassen First Nation treaty. Before I begin my remarks, I want to

salute Chief Kim Baird of the Tsawwassen First Nation and their band for having

negotiated this treaty and the future that they're looking forward to. I want to

start off by saluting the Chief and the first nation from Tsawwassen.

Before I get into the nuts and bolts of the treaty itself, I just

want to talk a little bit about the special relationship that I particularly

have had with aboriginal people in my constituency, and vice versa. I want to

talk about some of the time before 1991.

I live in Merritt in the Nicola Valley, as you know, hon. Speaker,

having been a member of this House since 1996 yourself — and myself, since 1991.

While I was growing up in elementary school and then in high school, I had a lot

of aboriginal friends. We played together, we fought together, and we played on

sports teams together. There were a lot of Indo-Canadian, aboriginal and also

kids of European descent. In a small community like Merritt, we got along quite

fine.

At one point the Indo-Canadian population was about 20 percent in

Merritt. About one-third was aboriginal, and the rest were people of European

descent. We got along quite well. That's not to say we didn't have our problems

initially, but I got to know aboriginal people quite well.

I particularly remember a couple of aboriginal youths in high

school. Harold Aljam, who is now Chief of the Coldwater Indian Band, was a good

friend of mine and a darn good soccer player, I must say. Casey Holmes is

another individual that I grew up and graduated from high school with. He was

another really good soccer player. I really got to know the culture quite a bit.

In my constituency of Yale-Lillooet there are 29 first nations

bands. That's actually more than any other constituency in the province, and I

feel quite fortunate, actually, having such a strong contingent of aboriginal

people in my constituency.

When Mike Harcourt and the NDP were coming up to an election in

'91, our party put out a document called A Just and Honourable

Settlement of the Aboriginal Land Question . That was our mission statement

of how Mike Harcourt and the NDP believed in treaty-making.

[1610]

During the election, I got a phone call from Chief Roger Adolf of

the Fountain Indian band near Lillooet, and he talked to me on the phone. He

said that he's never voted in his life. Basically, he put it to me to give him a

reason why he should vote. I talked to him at length and told him I'd meet with

him when I came to Lillooet as well. After talking for at least half an hour or

45 minutes, we talked about A Just and Honourable Settlement of the

Aboriginal Land Question . I think it was called a White Paper at that time

in terms of how we would do treaty-making. At the end, he said that he's going

to vote for the first time.

I remember in 1994 when the St'at'imc First Nation tribal police

was being instituted at the time, and Chief Roger Adolf got up on the stage. It

really brought tears to my eyes when he said that I was the first politician who

not only visited aboriginal people at election time but also came to visit them

on reserve in between elections as well.

Interjection.

H. Lali: He meant that in a real big way.

You know, the member from Kamloops may make all sorts of jokes he

wants, but I read the member's Nisga'a treaty debate. He talked about how he got

[ Page 8755 ]

personally involved with aboriginal people and how he felt, and it made his

heart swell as well. He didn't find me making jokes to that. I think he should

be cognizant of that and afford the same courtesy back.

In any case, I think it was about three or three and a half years

ago that the Conayt Friendship Society in Merritt celebrated its 30th

anniversary. At the civic centre in Merritt, the room was full — 300 guests from

all over, not only my constituency but around the province as well. At the end

they were handing out traditional aboriginal handcrafted drums to some very

special people, and there were a lot of aboriginal people, about half a dozen to

ten people, who received one.

As I was sitting there, again, another instance where it brought

tears to my eyes, because I was the only non-aboriginal person who was given a

ceremonial drum, somebody who worked with the Conayt Friendship Society over a

number of years dating back to the '80s. It really made me feel proud of my

accomplishments in terms of dealing with aboriginal people, especially since I

was the only non-aboriginal person who was afforded that courtesy or that honour

at that moment.

I want to talk about the government's new relationship and

reconciliation. I won't go into any detail. I know a lot of press releases,

etc., have been put out by the government on that already. But you know, they

like to pride themselves in terms of talking about the Tsawwassen treaty in the

context of how this has come about as a result of their new relationship or the

reconciliation. They seem to be very proud of that.

But I just want to read into the record what the aboriginal people

themselves are saying about the reconciliation. Chief Stuart Phillip, who is the

head of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, says that…. And I'm going to quote from

Justine Hunter in the Globe and Mail on October 13, 2007. She says that

he's very frustrated with the progress in terms of treaty-making.

This is what Chief Phillip is saying: "In the beginning there was

great hope based on the statements from the Premier that we were going to make

some significant progress through the new relationship. However, that has not

been the case. There is tremendous frustration and anger welling up in our

communities as a result of the progress."

Of course, I know the Premier talked in his statement on the

Tsawwassen First Nation treaty about the Nisga'a. He talked about the

reconciliation.

Here's what Grand Chief Doug Kelly of the Stó:lô Tribal Council

says on the new relationship: "If the Premier" — and he uses the Premier's name;

I'm not allowed to use that here — "is serious about establishing a new

relationship with first nations, then he should start by kicking some butts in

his own bureaucracy to create the political will to break the roadblocks here."

This is from The Province of March 8, 2007.

[1615]

I also want to read from a UBCIC press release on the treaty

process. This is from October 11, 2007:

"The UBCIC is greatly concerned that the message from the

provincial government and media will be that the B.C. treaty process is, in

fact, working and that reconciliation with all first nations in B.C. is

occurring through the new relationship. If there is a new relationship, the

Sencot'en C'A,I, Newel will not