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, NOVEMBER 27, 2007

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 25, Number 7

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of

Bills

Whistleblowers Protection Act, 2007

(Bill M233)

S. Simpson

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Aga Khan

J. Nuraney

Small-scale farming on Vancouver Island

D. Routley

Rogers Santa Claus Parade

L. Mayencourt

Support for Huynh family

D. Cubberley

FIFA Junior World Cup

H. Bloy

Wild ARC

M. Karagianis

Oral Questions

Implementation of Hughes report

recommendations on child protection

C. James

Hon. T.

Christensen

N. Simons

M. Karagianis

A. Dix

Government response to death of Amanda

Zhao

J. Kwan

Hon. J. Les

Funding for victim services

R. Fleming

Hon. J. Les

Business compensation for Canada line

construction

G. Robertson

Hon. K. Falcon

Pope and Talbot bankruptcy proceedings

C. Evans

Hon. R.

Coleman

Point of Privilege (Speaker's

Ruling)

Petitions

D. MacKay

Hon. K. Krueger

R. Cantelon

G. Coons

Second Reading of Bills

Electoral Boundaries Commission

Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 39) (continued)

A. Dix

R. Austin

Committee of the Whole House

Maa-nulth First Nations Final Agreement

Act (Bill 45) (continued)

S. Fraser

J. Horgan

Hon. M. de Jong

B. Simpson

[ Page 9515 ]

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 2007

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, he sat in this chamber for 15

years. He served as British Columbia's first Aboriginal Affairs Minister, and

only moments ago he confirmed that he has no intention of returning to this

place for anything other than a visit.

I am speaking, of course, of Jack Weisgerber, who today serves

with distinction as the head — actually, the chair — of the B.C. Treaty

Commission process. It's great to have Jack Weisgerber back in this building and

in these precincts, and I hope all members will make him feel welcome.

J. Horgan: It's a pleasure today to introduce in the

gallery Christine Nicholls, who goes to Pilgrim United Church with me on the

West Shore here on the south Island. Joining her are her children Katherine and

Duncan Silversides.

For those in the House today, Duncan is the first person in our

knowledge to stand on the caucus chair in the NDP caucus room and juggle apples.

Would you please make them welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

WHISTLEBLOWERS PROTECTION ACT, 2007

S. Simpson presented a bill intituled Whistleblowers Protection

Act, 2007.

S. Simpson: I move a bill intituled the Whistleblowers

Protection Act, 2007, and ask that it be introduced and read for a first time

now.

Motion approved.

[1335]

S. Simpson: The Whistleblowers Protection Act, 2007, will

facilitate the disclosure and investigation of significant and serious matters

in or relating to the public service that are potentially unlawful, dangerous or

injurious to the public or that demonstrate a gross mismanagement of public

funds or assets or an impact on the environment. The bill will protect those

persons who disclose that information from retribution.

The bill calls for a structure to be created within each ministry

to facilitate those disclosures and requires an annual public reporting of all

issues raised under the legislation. It empowers the Ombudsman to both provide

oversight to this legislation and be a source for disclosures of complaints

under the act as well. Further, the bill lays out a process to protect against

malicious complaints that are not founded.

The growing secrecy of this government and its methodical and

unforgiving approach to shutting down transparency have compelled the

introduction of this bill. Far too often we hear in the areas of the

decisions, actions or conduct that are not in the public interest.

There are situations where government employees or employees of

organizations that are contracted with government would come forward to disclose

those concerns and bring them to light, but they feel intimidated or concerned

about the security of their jobs, so they stay silent.

If we truly want open government, we need to remove that risk and

encourage dedicated civil servants and service providers to come forward when

they feel compelled to shine a light on government irregularities or

unacceptable conduct. The Whistleblowers Protection Act, 2007, is intended to

provide government workers and service providers that opportunity and the

necessary protections to be able to come forward with confidence that they will

not face retribution from the government.

I move this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M233, Whistleblowers Protection 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.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) AGA KHAN

J. Nuraney: On December 13 the Shia Ismaili Muslim

community will be celebrating the 71st birthday of His Highness the Aga Khan.

He's the 49th direct descendant from Prophet Muhammad, and he's the spiritual

leader of the Shia Ismaili Muslim community, estimated to be around 15 million

around the world.

The community is also celebrating the golden jubilee of him

assuming the role of the imam. His Highness has phenomenal accomplishments and

achievements in the past 50 years. He's the founder of the Aga Khan Foundation,

which has now become one of the largest philanthropic organizations in the

world.

He's also the founder of the university and medical college in

Pakistan and the University of Central Asia to serve the needs of Tajikistan,

Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan. His work around the world in health care, education

and helping those less fortunate in developing countries is well known and

recognized. They range from founding and operating 200 health facilities —

including nine hospitals, which is considered to be the most comprehensive

health care system in the developing countries — to his education programs

covering a wide spectrum of activities from early childhood to degrees in

medicine.

[ Page 9516 ]

He also built and operates Aga Khan Academies to encourage local

intellectual leadership, to develop drivers of society in developing countries.

The Aga Khan Trust for Culture promotes excellence in Muslim architecture and

the revival of traditional music.

His efforts in helping those less fortunate include rural building

and planning, microfinancing and emergency relief. He has been honoured by

various countries around the world and is also a Companion of the Order of

Canada.

I would invite the members of the Legislature to join me in

wishing His Highness a happy birthday.

SMALL-SCALE FARMING ON

VANCOUVER ISLAND

D. Routley: Before I start, Mr. Speaker, I should ask you

whether it's permissible to use a member's name as a noun rather than a pronoun.

I want to do a Corkster, which is speaking from minimal notes, but I'll resist

waving a glass of water around in the face of my….

I'm rising to talk about small-scale agriculture and Vancouver

Island farms. First of all, I'd like to talk about the history of those farms.

Just like the communities on Vancouver Island, they were interlopers; they were

squatters. When the E&N land grant was given to Dunsmuir, communities sprouted

up all along the line. Over time they occupied space they couldn't be removed

from, so Mr. Dunsmuir was given land in exchange.

[1340]

That's the history of the towns on Vancouver Island and also of

the farms. We have a postage-stamp set of farms on an island with postage

stamp–size fields. These farms face unique challenges: the meat inspection

rules, a housing market that is encroaching on their lands.

In order to deal with that, our farmers on Vancouver Island have

become remarkable examples of entrepreneurialism. They have multimarketing

strategies that take the hay from the field and milk the cow and make the cheese

and market it in the small delis and in the restaurants.

I think it's absolutely fantastic. A wide variety of meats and

vegetables are fresh in our restaurants and our stores because of the efforts of

these great farmers. We have unique products like camp cranberry. We have the

second-largest holly farm in North America. These are all very unique operations

that deserve our protection.

Environmental considerations are a big piece of why we need to

step up to support small-scale farming on Vancouver Island. The hundred-mile

diet is very popular in people's minds right now, the ideas of climate change….

By supporting small farmers and small farming, small-scale production, we can do

a lot to address those issues.

In ending, we all need to protect the ALR and small-scale food

production in order to eat, drink and survive.

ROGERS SANTA CLAUS PARADE

L. Mayencourt: It's a pleasure to rise in the House and

speak about an event that I attended this past weekend. It was the fourth annual

Rogers Santa Claus Parade. It's always been something very exciting, but this

year it was even better than ever before. We had about 300,000 people out there

on the sidewalks watching us. It was one of those events that really brought the

community together.

In fact, there were about 150 volunteers that volunteered with

Rogers to make sure the parade happened. We had a lot of families and friends

involved in that, and we were very, very happy to see some volunteers that had

signed up on VolWeb. VolWeb is a place where you can sign up to gather points

that will allow you to become a volunteer at the 2010 Olympics. There were 62

entries and about 1,800 participants inside the parade, including Santa Claus.

I was told just a few moments ago that Santa arrived from Dawson

Creek, so I want to thank the member for Peace River South for sending him down.

We try and raise a lot of awareness around food banks and such

during the Rogers Santa Claus Parade. We raised about 15,000 pounds of food that

was delivered to the food bank. It took us about an hour and a half to unload

it, actually.

We also saw some cash donations from the Vancouver firefighters.

We got $2,500, and $7,500 from the public. Rogers also donated another $50,000.

For those who didn't get to see the parade, you can see it on

Global Television, which will be showing it twice over the next couple of weeks.

For those of you that still want to make a donation to the food bank, it's

really easy. All you've got to do is walk it into a Rogers Video, a Rogers Plus

or a Rogers authorized dealer in the lower mainland before December 24. You'll

be feeding friends in your neighbourhood, you'll be spreading good cheer, and

you'll be making sure that the Santa parade has produced a really great benefit

for our community.

SUPPORT FOR HUYNH FAMILY

D. Cubberley: Today I want to share a story about

constituents of mine that extends far beyond Saanich South. It's a tale of

tragedy and generosity that celebrates community and compassion. It's about

Johnny Huynh; his wife Chinh Thi Ngo, who suffers from ALS; and their three boys

— a family that found itself separated when Chinh's illness worsened en route to

Vietnam to say farewell to family and friends.

Forced to leave her in a hospital she couldn't leave without

complex medical supports, Johnny was left facing the daunting challenge of

getting her home. The cost and obstacles were formidable. He turned first to his

family and then to his community for help.

Efforts started at Northridge Elementary, the boys school. Teacher

Pat Mar began fundraising, and local lawyer Sinclair Mar helped spread the word.

She set up

[ Page 9517 ]

a trust fund account at Coast Capital, helped by Alyssa Berne and her

colleagues. Tracy Tranh held a fundraiser at her Shizen Japanese Restaurant.

Local media became involved, bringing the situation to a regional public who

responded by giving.

Northridge principal Terry Edwards was a conduit for dialogue with

kids, parents, community and media, all the while helping the family cope. Debra

McPherson of the BCNU involved herself and her staff, and organized logistics to

help Chinh return without a hitch.

[1345]

The B.C. Ministry of Health enabled Chinh to be hospitalized upon

arrival. Michele Lane of B.C. Bedline performed commendably.

People do care. They reached out because this story touched them

personally. I want to thank one and all for their contribution.

Johnny tells us that on the first of each month, a $500 voucher

for groceries just shows up in his mailbox, a gesture of caring from someone

whose generosity seeks no recognition at all. I know that Johnny, Chinh and the

boys are grateful to everyone, but we're also grateful to them, too, for drawing

out the best in us. It's in us to give. But for fortune, there go you or I.

FIFA JUNIOR WORLD CUP

H. Bloy: I rise today to inform the House how the city of

Burnaby successfully hosted a world-class sporting venue this summer. More than

15,500 people were drawn to beautiful Burnaby this summer to enjoy the FIFA

junior World Cup tournament at our state-of-the-art Swangard Stadium. That's

according to a report prepared by the Canadian Sport Tourism Alliance, proving

Burnaby to be an elite host city for such sporting events.

From July 1 to 7, Burnaby showcased some of the world's best young

soccer players for locals and visitors to enjoy, as well as exposing our

community as a premium host city for national events. This was a great chance to

raise the profile of Burnaby as a travel destination and demonstrate how we are

capable of staging such an elite event welcoming the world to our community.

That's thanks to John Roca, executive director of the FIFA junior World Cup.

Hosting events such as this one brings many benefits to our local

economy. The junior World Cup pumped over $8.5 million into Burnaby's economy,

and it was encouraging to see so many visitors from the United States and

overseas come to our city.

In Burnaby in 2008 we'll host the World Broomball Championships.

Beyond that, as we gear up to host the 2009 World Police and Fire Games, we can

expect to have many economic positive spinoffs in our community and the lower

mainland. That's over $100 million into the economy, with 15,000 athletes and

over 25,000 family and coaches participating.

I'm proud to say that Burnaby is a world-class city.

WILD ARC

M. Karagianis: It's my pleasure to stand in the House today

and talk with members about an exceptional story. The only wildlife

rehabilitation centre in southern Vancouver Island is called Wild ARC, the wild

animal rehabilitation centre operated by the B.C. Society for the Prevention of

Cruelty to Animals. It's done entirely without any government funding.

Wild ARC opened about ten years ago on ten acres of rural land in

Metchosin at the western end of my constituency. It was built by the Victoria

SPCA to celebrate their centennial anniversary.

Every year Wild ARC treats more than 1,700 wild animals from

throughout the region. Wild ARC's mission is to provide humane care to injured,

orphaned, sick or distressed wildlife. Each one of the creatures that comes to

Wild ARC is treated individually and assessed for eventual release back into the

wild.

The centre rehabilitates raptors, mammals, amphibians, reptiles

and migratory birds under permits issued by the B.C. Ministry of Environment and

the Canadian Wildlife Service. In total, Wild ARC has provided care for more

than 140 species of animals. The treatment the animals receive is based on the

latest principles in wildlife rehabilitation and medicine.

Wild ARC also works to educate the public about wildlife, animal

welfare and coexisting with nature. More than three-quarters of the wild animals

treated at Wild ARC have come to the facility because of the impacts of human

activity.

In the words of renowned oceanographer Jacques Cousteau: "When we

return wild animals to nature, we merely return them to what is already theirs,

for man cannot give wild animals freedom; they can only take it away."

I hope members will join me today in acknowledging the

exceptional work of Wild ARC in my community.

Oral Questions

IMPLEMENTATION OF

HUGHES REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

ON CHILD PROTECTION

C. James: After years of cuts and denial by the Premier,

this government had to be dragged kicking and screaming to bring back an

independent advocate for children and youth.

[1350]

Now that the representative has released her first major report,

it's very clear that the Premier and this government have learned absolutely

nothing. They continue to fail vulnerable children and youth. The report

released yesterday is an indictment of that failure, of this minister and of

this Premier.

The Premier promised action on all 62 of the Hughes

recommendations. He did so with a sense of urgency. He even brought in his

handpicked deputy minister. But 18 months later, those promises and commitments

are gone. The minister can't get the job done.

My question is to the Minister of Children and Family Development.

Can he explain why, 18 months

[ Page 9518 ]

later, all he has to show for his efforts is an insincere draft plan that

fails to protect the most vulnerable children in our province?

Hon. T. Christensen: Certainly, the government welcomes the

representative's work and her report. We believe it's an important

accountability measure for the public to have an opportunity to review that

report. There's no question that the child and youth representative takes her

role very seriously and is to be commended for that.

There's equally no question that the leadership within the

Ministry of Children and Family Development, right down to the front-line

employees of the Ministry of Children and Family Development, take their

responsibilities very seriously to better serve children and families across

this province.

I think it's a bit telling — the eagerness with which the Leader

of the Opposition jumps on this report and tries to immediately politicize it,

as she did yesterday before she had any opportunity to even review it.

I would remind the members opposite of one of the key things that

Mr. Hughes said. He said a number of very strong things. He said: "I am

proposing a new body — a Representative for Children and Youth — that will build

on the strengths of its predecessors and on the lessons learned from their

experience…. Further, its reporting process through the select standing

committee will be designed to help depoliticize the debate around child welfare

issues."

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

C. James: The minister left out one very important point,

and that is that people on this side of the House actually expected the

government to do something to implement the Hughes recommendations. You would

never know that the minister welcomed that report, when all we saw him do

yesterday was point fingers and lay blame somewhere else — everything except

accepting the fact that he and the Premier and this government are the problem

here.

They've failed to put vulnerable children first, and the report is

very clear. It says the Premier and the minister have failed to deliver on 22 of

the most important recommendations — recommendations like funding levels, staff

resources, training, support for front-line workers; recommendations that are at

the heart of protecting vulnerable children.

It was this Premier who promised "to put in place a comprehensive

plan that deals with all 62 recommendations." But all the Premier, his

handpicked deputy and the minister have delivered is a vague and inconsistent

plan.

I ask again. To the Minister of Children and Family Development:

enough excuses, enough finger-pointing. Why did he and the Premier break their

promise to the most vulnerable children in our province and not implement the

Hughes recommendations?

Hon. T. Christensen: Well, we have gone a significant way

to implementing the Hughes recommendations. By the representative's own measure,

60 percent of the recommendations are complete or certainly well in progress.

One of those recommendations was the establishment of the select

standing committee. Mr. Hughes said — and this is quoted from The Vancouver

Sun : "Also paramount in fixing the system…is to depoliticize the matter in

the Legislature, where it is often the subject of fiery and sometimes personal

attacks. Hughes wants the Legislature to create an 'all-party' committee on

child welfare to 'encourage government and the opposition to work together to

address the challenges facing the system.'"

The Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth exists. The

member for Surrey–Panorama Ridge sits on that committee. The member for

Esquimalt-Metchosin sits on that committee. The member for Nanaimo sits on that

committee, and the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast sits on that

committee.

[1355]

They have ample opportunity at that committee to review thoroughly

— and I encourage them to review thoroughly — the report of the child and youth

representative. I would equally encourage them to invite the Ministry of

Children and Family Development to come and provide a fulsome explanation of the

work that is happening in the ministry to improve services to children and

families and meet Mr. Hughes's recommendations.

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

supplemental.

C. James: I'd like to remind the minister that it took six

years of this government dragging their feet, refusing to bring back an

independent officer. Thank goodness we have that committee so the government

can't hide the information that they aren't doing anything on behalf of children

anymore.

We hear the excuses, and we hear the avoidance, but no one over

there will admit that this has been a failure from the Premier's office down.

Every child who falls through the cracks is a loss to all of us in British

Columbia. This government and this Premier promised to make sure that they did

something to avoid those cracks for children, that they actually took some

action. What the report pointed out clearly yesterday is that they haven't done

anything.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to ask if anyone — if someone — on that

side will stand up, will show some leadership, will take this issue seriously

and will do something on behalf of the most vulnerable children in British

Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. T. Christensen: Mr. Hughes made his recommendations 18

months ago; 60 percent of those recommendations are either complete or well in

progress by the representative's measure.

[ Page 9519 ]

The ministry believes that all of the recommendations have had

substantive work undertaken on them. We welcome the opportunity to appear before

the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth to enlighten the members

opposite, the members on this side and the public as a whole as to the

substantive work that is going on within the Ministry of Children and Family

Development.

I don't know what it is that the opposition members have against

the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth. Mr. Hughes certainly

thought it would be a welcome addition to try and depoliticize this matter.

If there's one thing that I am prepared to agree with the Leader

of the Opposition on, that is that we must all strive to better serve children

and families right across this province.

N. Simons: Mr. Speaker, this side is very grateful for the

work of the select standing committee. It's that very body that is bringing some

accountability to this government, because the government fails to take it

themselves.

What is clear is that after 18 months…. The representative said it

was clear. These recommendations aren't that complex, yet it's 18 months, and

we've got 22 that may have been accomplished. Twenty-two is not 60 percent,

Minister.

Will the minister admit — does he even realize — that his failure

to fulfil his promise to implement those recommendations is having a direct

impact on children and families in this province?

Hon. T. Christensen: Day in and day out in this province,

serving children and families on the front lines of the Ministry of Children and

Family Development is the number one priority.

That's why over the course of the last two years, the last year in

fact, we've added 200 front-line workers across the province to bolster staffing

so that we can better serve children and families. That's why we continue to add

front-line staff.

It's why we've engaged staff significantly in a discussion over

the course of the last two years as to how it is that we can better serve

children and families. Where are the gaps in services? What is it in the nature

of the work we're doing with families that can ensure that we enable children

not to be coming into care but to live safely with their families?

[1400]

I agree, as I said at the outset, that this is an important report

that the child and youth representative has submitted. I believe that we can all

learn from this report, but I also believe quite sincerely that the Select

Standing Committee on Children and Youth should take the opportunity to review

the report thoroughly and give the ministry an opportunity to respond.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Simons: Let me first point out that there's probably no

one in this House who understands the hard work of front-line social workers,

and this opposition understands that work probably better than anyone else on

that side of the House. I will stand by that statement, quite frankly.

While the minister pretends that this is a report…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

N. Simons: …about front-line social workers, he should know

better. This is a direct indictment of his….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member, just take your seat. I can't hear you.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member, continue.

N. Simons: Nobody on this side of the House has anything to

learn from this minister about protecting children in this province.

His feeble attempt and his cohorts' feeble attempts to say that

we're denigrating the social workers in this province…. They are wrong. They are

wrong.

What we are taking issue with is the same thing that the

representative is taking issue with, and that is the lack of leadership that has

been shown by this government and by this minister.

So I repeat my question to the Minister of Children and Family

Development. Does he even realize that his failure in this file and the failure

of his government are having a direct impact on children, on social workers and

on families across this province?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. T. Christensen: I'm not sure there was a question

there, but the member has a very selective memory of his government's, the NDP

government in the 1990s, handling of this ministry.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. T. Christensen: Mr. Speaker, let's look at the

interaction of the NDP government with front-line social workers. Under the NDP,

B.C. faced a severe shortage of qualified social workers. The north, the

Kootenays and Surrey had vacancy rates of up to 44 percent under that NDP

government, and 250 of the 300 social workers hired in 1995 to help implement

the Gove inquiry recommendations had quit within two years due to work overload.

[ Page 9520 ]

None of the 53 UBC social work graduates in 2000 applied to work

for the Ministry of Children and Family Development. It's a damning example of

how the NDP handled this file.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Karagianis: Everything we have heard today from this

minister is full of contradictions. He says he's committed to the Hughes

recommendations. He's been bragging about the fact that only 60 percent of the

recommendations have been fulfilled to this point. He's talked about

depoliticizing the system, depoliticizing the issue here. Yet yesterday, by his

very actions, he politicized the report by rebutting it before the committee

even had a chance to read it.

Last May, on the very last day of the last sitting, in direct

questions by me to the minister, the minister actually said: "All 62 of the

recommendations are completed or underway."

Can the minister explain to British Columbians why all 62

recommendations were completed or underway then, and yet today he's telling us

only 60 percent are underway or completed? Was the minister true then, or is he

telling us the truth today?

[1405]

Hon. T. Christensen: In the spring I said that all

recommendations were being implemented or certainly were underway, and the

ministry believes that all recommendations are underway. That's what I said in

earlier answers….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. T. Christensen: We accept that the child and youth

representative has done her work, has measured progress. By her measure, she

believes that 60 percent of the recommendations are either complete or well in

progress — by her measure. I believe she's sincere in that work, and I have no

disagreement with that work.

However, by the measure of the transition team made up of the

Deputy Attorney General, the Deputy Solicitor General and the Deputy Minister of

Children and Family Development, who issued a report in May…. They indicated

that they believed that all of the recommendations were in progress, and the

recommendations are in progress.

As I said, there is a disagreement. We welcome the opportunity to

appear before the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth and have a

fulsome discussion about this. I don't know why it is that the members of the

opposition wish to ensure that they can get headlines out of this rather than

ensuring we get fulsome information so that we can improve services to children

and youth.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: Certainly, the ministry has met with the

Children and Youth Committee and has presented their point of view, and now we

have seen what the children's representative has to say about the

recommendations and the lack of progress on them.

I would actually bring to the minister's attention, for his

recall, his words to me exactly, where he said, upon questioning: "We've taken

the recommendations Mr. Hughes made. We have been working on implementing those

over the course of the last year" — right?

He said that that week they posted to their website a report from

the transition team as well as a recommendation-by-recommendation list that

indicated what has been done. "It clearly indicates that all of them have either

been completed or…are underway" — all of them.

The exact minister's words, and yet today certainly we see that

that's not true. In fact, it was the representative who has drawn to our

attention that there has been no progress on at least 22 of those

recommendations.

So in further questioning to the minister, I would ask the

minister…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Karagianis: …despite his contradictions here, despite

his contradictions in referring to the children's representative's

recommendations: was the minister wrong then, or is the representative wrong

now?

Hon. T. Christensen: The transition team issued a

summary

report in the spring. The member has referred to it. The transition team stands

by that.

Clearly, the representative has issued a report yesterday where,

by her measure, 60 percent are either complete or well in progress. I'm actually

quite interested in sitting down with the representative to determine how it is

that she was specifically measuring progress on the recommendations — how it is

that we can better satisfy the child and youth representative's office that

progress is being made on the recommendations so that the public can have full

confidence that, in fact, all of the Hughes recommendations are being

implemented.

I'll reiterate. We welcome the opportunity to appear before the

select standing committee so that we can take some of the political banter out

of this and actually get down to determining what information is relevant.

A. Dix: The problem is not with the children's

representative. The problem is with the minister, who's not getting the job

done.

My question to the minister is simple….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[ Page 9521 ]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Member.

A. Dix: The children's representative said clearly that the

minister has made no or little progress on 22 recommendations — some of the most

important recommendations in the Hughes report.

[1410]

When is the Minister of Children and Families, when is the

Premier's handpicked Deputy Minister of Children and Families going to forget

about the rhetoric, stop picking fights with the child representative and

deliver on what they said they'd do, which is implement the Hughes report?

Hon. T. Christensen: I appreciate that the member opposite

and the opposition may choose to try and gain from this report and position the

minister against the representative, but nothing could be further from the

truth.

I look forward to sitting down with the representative,

determining where it is that the ministry can do better. I've sat down with the

representative on a number of occasions through the last number of months, and

we have a very strong relationship, I believe.

We are fully committed to implementing all of Mr. Hughes's

recommendations. That work is underway. We will be working with the

representative to ensure that we have a clear understanding of how we can

satisfy her, that all of that work is underway. All of that together will

provide better services to children and families across the province.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO

DEATH OF AMANDA ZHAO

J. Kwan: In October 2002, 21-year-old Amanda Zhao was found

murdered in Burnaby. Amanda's boyfriend at the time — Ang Li, a Chinese foreign

student living in Canada — was implicated in the murder but returned to China

before charges could be laid.

Recently Amanda's mother wrote: "We lost our only daughter. Five

years are gone, and justice still isn't served. Is this fair? Every day is a

torture. There should be an end to that wait. The days of our lives are

numbered, and if you don't bring justice to my daughter, we will not die in

peace."

Can the Solicitor General tell Amanda's parents what he's doing to

ensure that a fair process of justice will begin for the Zhao family?

Hon. J. Les: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question on

notice.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a

supplemental. Is it a new question?

J. Kwan: Yes, it is.

Mr. Speaker: Continue.

J. Kwan: The situation involved a young woman who was

murdered here in Canadian jurisdiction….

Mr. Speaker: Member, is it a new question?

J. Kwan: Yes, it is.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, but it must be a new question.

J. Kwan: Yes, it is a new question.

In a letter from the Minister of Public Safety, Stockwell Day, he

stated that law enforcement and administration of justice are provincial

responsibilities. He suggested that the question around Amanda Zhao and

diplomatic channels should be brought to the minister's attention.

Now that the Solicitor General is aware of his responsibility,

will he commit to asking the Premier, who is in China, to use diplomatic

channels to ensure that due process is administered in the murder of Amanda

Zhao?

Hon. J. Les: This is a serious case. Obviously, we're

interested in it. I've taken it on notice, and I'll undertake to the member to

get back to her with an appropriate response.

FUNDING FOR VICTIM SERVICES

R. Fleming: Last month the Solicitor General was dead

against regional policing, but last week he changed his mind.

I'm hoping that this week he'll be in favour of properly funding,

finally, regional victim services, police-based victim services in this region,

because it is a regional police force that coordinates seven police forces in

Greater Victoria.

Greater Victoria Victim Services estimate they've lost $642,000

since 2002, because the Solicitor General fails to comply with his own

ministry's funding formula. It's literally robbing crime victims of services.

Each year the program is owed $240,000 annually, by his ministry's account, but

only gets $109,000 per year.

To the Solicitor General: when will his ministry properly fund

Victoria and B.C.'s police-based victims-of-crime organizations so that victims

can get proper help to cope with the traumatic and invasive impact of crime on

their lives?

[1415]

Hon. J. Les: The victim services programs in my ministry

are, I think, some of the most treasured programs that I have in my ministry,

where we support victims through often very traumatic experiences. We have 153

victim services programs across the province — not only police-based, as the

member indicates, but also community-based. We work very hard through the

ministry staff — as well as through volunteers, by the way — to ensure that

victim services are delivered.

The program in Victoria is in fact funded at a greater level than

that which is provided to Vancouver

[ Page 9522 ]

and to Surrey, but nonetheless, there is always the opportunity for review.

In this case, we are in fact reviewing the program to see whether changes are

appropriate.

BUSINESS COMPENSATION FOR

CANADA LINE CONSTRUCTION

G. Robertson: The Cambie Village Business Association

issued a press release yesterday indicating that they are soon voting on a class

action lawsuit on behalf of their several hundred members. We know that this

government treats small business like disposable diapers. It looks like the same

thing is going to happen for the taxpayers. Taxpayers will now have to eat the

cost of fighting with small business owners in court because this government

won't do the right thing.

Municipal leaders on the TransLink board have called on the

provincial government for new policy on mitigation that includes compensation.

This government has not delivered, and now you're eliminating the elected

officials from this board. This government has already handpicked a new

unelected board for TransLink.

Will you also be directing this new board to compensate the small

businesses on Cambie Street?

Hon. K. Falcon: Mr. Speaker….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Minister, continue.

Hon. K. Falcon: You know, it's interesting. The NDP always

say one thing when they're in government and quite another thing when they're in

opposition. It's very, very interesting to me, actually, because whether it's —

God forbid — the NDP in power or our government in power, government has to deal

with challenges occasionally when we're investing in and building major

infrastructure — in this case, through TransLink.

But that opposition appears to have a short memory. They were at

one time also building a line called the Millennium line, and they were going

through the exact same things.

For the member there, who takes such great interest in this, I

would like to quote: "It has cost my business, my marriage, everything. We've

had no car access since June last year. Don't they understand that people can't

take these kinds of things very long?" That's The Vancouver Sun , April

20, 2001.

Member, when you were in power, you did nothing then. The reason

you didn't was because you were trying to deal with investing in infrastructure

and trying to do it in a way that meets the needs of the public, recognizing

that it's a challenge while you do it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, we certainly want to hear

from the member for Nelson-Creston.

POPE AND TALBOT

BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS

C. Evans: Hon. Speaker, last week…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. Evans: …we discussed the fact that Pope and Talbot is

the licensee in the Arrow Lakes on two million acres, TFL 23. They employ

loggers in my constituency. My loggers put $10 million worth of logs in the

lake. Pope and Talbot has refused to pay their $5 million labour bill. That

means Pope and Talbot is insolvent.

Section 18.03 of Pope and Talbot's licence with the Minister of

Forests speaks about insolvency. It says that if the licensee commits

an act of

bankruptcy, makes a general assignment of its creditors or otherwise

acknowledges its insolvency, the licensee is deemed to have failed to perform an

obligation under this licence.

My question to the minister is: when did the minister understand

that Pope and Talbot was insolvent? And when will he advise them that he is

removing their licence?

Hon. R. Coleman: This matter is actually in hearings again

on Friday under CCAA. It's before the courts, and it will come through the

matter. There are offers on the table being considered by the courts with

regards to the future of those mills and those things in the Kootenays. I hope

that somebody is successful in actually protecting the jobs and protecting the

industry and the future in the Kootenays.

[1420]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member for Nelson-Creston has a supplemental.

C. Evans: My next question is to the Attorney General. This

contract for TFL 23 is mirrored by hundreds of similar contracts for forest

licences and TFLs all over the province.

My question to the Attorney General: if we set the precedent in

the case of Pope and Talbot that the licensee becomes insolvent and we fail to

inform them that they are in contravention of their licence and remove it, have

we not set a precedent for every other logging company on every other acre

employing loggers all over this province that they can go bankrupt and not pay

British Columbians and that we won't do a thing?

Hon. R. Coleman: I actually issued a letter to the member

today on a question that I took on notice last week, because he accused the

government of not having any representation at the legal case. Maybe when he was

there he didn't recognize the government lawyers, but there were three of them

there. There were three of

[ Page 9523 ]

them there protecting the interests of British Columbia and will continue to

protect the….

Interjections.

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, look. It's before the courts. It's

federal statute. We are actually going to protect the interests of British

Columbia, hon. Member, and you can rant and rave all you want. We'll do it

within the law.

[End of question period.]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. The second bell really ends

question period.

Point of Privilege

(Speaker's Ruling)

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, last Thursday, November 22, the

Minister of Health raised a question of privilege with respect to a matter

raised during oral question period on November 21. Specifically, the minister

objected to the words spoken by the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith, which the

minister characterized as an accusation by the member regarding the care of an

individual at the Lodge on 4th in Ladysmith. The minister tabled additional

information in support of his submission.

On November 26 the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith responded to the

question of privilege raised by the Minister of Health and outlined the facts

relating to the incident at issue from his own perspective.

The Chair has carefully examined the submission and material

tendered by both the Minister of Health and the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith.

The Chair concludes that there exists a clear difference of opinion between both

members as to the facts relating to the incident which occurred.

Privilege exists to protect members with respect to their

functioning as members of the House. The strict definition of privilege cannot

be expanded to include dispute as to facts, opinions, conclusions between

members. It has been a very longstanding practice of this House that a member's

statement is accepted by the House in absence of indisputable evidence to the

contrary.

There must be prima facie evidence that the member for

Cowichan-Ladysmith deliberately misled the House. No such evidence was submitted

to the Chair. In addition, the Minister of Health has not established in his

submission sufficient foundation to enable the Chair to make a prima facie

finding that the House was deliberately misled.

The matter raised by the Minister of Health is a matter which

squarely falls into the category of a dispute as to facts and as such does not

form the basis for a question of privilege. I so rule.

D. MacKay: I have a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

D. MacKay: I have a petition signed by people from the

lower mainland and Victoria asking the province to reactivate the Select

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs in light of the results of the

Tsawwassen and the Maa-nulth treaty.

Hon. K. Krueger: I rise to present a petition on behalf of

our colleague the member for Kelowna–Lake Country, who is convalescing. It's

signed by 300 of his constituents expressing their concerns with the

proliferation of aggregate operations in Lake Country.

R. Cantelon: I have a petition from 24 residents of

Vancouver Island who submit that there should be a law to prevent the discharge

of raw sewage from vessels and pleasure craft within three nautical kilometres

of the shoreline.

[1425]

G. Coons: I have a petition, 83 names collected in Haida

Gwaii, that the province dedicate lot 5 at the Sangan River estuary on North

Beach of Graham Island on Haida Gwaii as a public recreational use area.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Just before I do that, I was asked by

Joyce of the Sergeant-at-Arms office to remind all members, as the week winds

down, to take any materials from your desks prior to departure before the House

adjourns, because the desks are used during Christmas for Youth Parliament.

Please remember to do that.

Secondly, I call continued second reading debate on Bill 39.

Second Reading of Bills

ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES COMMISSION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

(continued)

A. Dix: It's wonderful to rise and have yet another

opportunity to speak in this debate, which the Government House Leader has

provided us today. I think that the enthusiasm for the debate is seen by the

actions of all in this place.

We are, of course, speaking of Bill 39, the Electoral Boundaries

Commission Amendment Act. We all recall the process that led us here. We as a

Legislature voted unanimously, I believe, to set up this Boundaries Commission

consistent with historical practice and our obligations. We did so, hon.

Speaker, as you know, and the Boundaries Commission set out and did its work.

It's interesting to note because of the key issues before the

Boundaries Commission, some of those key

[ Page 9524 ]

issues being to ensure representation in all parts of British Columbia. It's

a key issue to ensure fairness to communities — to in fact ensure that British

Columbians are well represented, to deal with issues such as the STV question

that has set up separate boundaries and to contribute in that way to the

referendum we're going to be holding in 2009.

It's interesting that the government's interest in this question

came so late. In fact, as you know, only two Liberal MLAs — if I may call them

that, because one of them is the member for Peace River South and one is the

member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine — even bothered to attend. It seems

unbelievable, given the apparent interest in this debate by members on the

government side, that only two government MLAs even bothered to attend the

public consultations.

That compares, of course, with ten times that number of opposition

members who participated, who advocated on behalf of their constituents, who

advocated on behalf of their communities.

What happened, hon. Speaker? You ask that question. Well, members

on the government side didn't like the result. They didn't participate in the

process. They didn't care about the process. They didn't take

part in the

process. They didn't advocate for rural communities. They didn't advocate for

urban communities. They didn't advocate on the question at all. They weren't

part of the process at all.

Like all people who are caught out, the Premier — having failed

the process, having not participated in the process, having not taken the

process that we set up in this Legislature in any way seriously — decided to

bring in this piece of legislation.

There was another opportunity. Indeed, there would have been a

further process, as everybody knows. There would have been a further process to

assess and contribute to the decision made by the Electoral Boundaries

Commission, but the Premier didn't do that.

The Premier decided, in an unprecedented way, to intervene in the

process, and that's what he did. The Premier decided to interfere with the work

of the commission. It is a surprising step, it's an unfortunate step, and it's a

step which I don't think is respectful of all of the hundreds of people who took

part in that process.

[1430]

It's like the Premier said: "Okay, myself and my friends didn't

think this process was worth anything." We know that because they didn't come

and participate. They didn't think it was worth a single, solitary thing, with

the exception, again, of the — shall we call them — secondary caucus of the

government caucus. The member for Peace River South and the member for Bulkley

Valley–Stikine participated; everyone else didn't.

So they didn't care. Then they took all of the efforts of all the

people who did care. There were MLAs, but there were hundreds of ordinary

citizens in communities around British Columbia who cared enough to take part,

to participate, to give of themselves to that process in the belief that the

word of the government was of value.

That is the contract when you set up legislation for an

independent commission. The contract is that you respect the process, and you

respect the people that take

part in the process. What we have, not for the

first time, is an effort by the government to disrespect the process.

Imagine this. Is it possible to imagine, hon. Speaker, that the

Premier of British Columbia — who stood up in this House and has said many times

that he believes in the independence of the Electoral Boundaries Commission

process — doesn't take

part in it, allows hundreds of people to…?

The commission has spent millions of dollars — an enormous amount

of work in the process — and he says: "Well, I don't think so. I'm not even

going to bother to go to the commission and defend rural representation. That's

not important to me."

How do we know it's not important to him? Because when something

is important to him, he goes. He didn't go.

Did a single member of the cabinet…? In our system, as you know,

hon. Speaker, all members of the cabinet are also Members of the Legislative

Assembly and representatives of the community. The executive and the legislative

branch — they represent both. Did a single, solitary member of the cabinet — one

of them — go and say: "We want to fight for rural representation. We want to

fight for the Kootenays. We want to fight for the Cariboo. We want to fight for

the Prince George region. We want to fight for the northwest. We want to fight

for Vancouver Island"? Did any of them go?

Well, sadly, the answer to that question is no. Now, in a

democracy we have the right not to participate, but it's frequently said that

when people don't participate in the process, they don't have a right to

complain about the result. That's what is frequently said. It's important to

vote. We make the case for people to vote in elections, because that gives them

the right — whether their side, the side they voted for, wins or loses or

finishes third or ninth or 19th. They fulfilled their duty as citizens.

What we have is a government — government MLAs and a Premier —

who, in this process, a process he set up…. They drafted the legislation. It

came from the legislative draftsperson, it came through the cabinet room, and

they said a-okay. They brought it in this House, and they stood up and voted for

it. And then they didn't bother to take

part in that process.

The Premier didn't like the result, and he wouldn't stand up. He

wouldn't join the Leader of the Opposition and others and say: "I'm going to the

commission. I'm going to defend rural representation." No. He said: "I'm going

to intervene. The process didn't matter, because it didn't decide what I wanted

to decide. Never mind that I didn't care enough to participate. Never mind that

I didn't care enough to participate on behalf of the people of Vancouver–Point

Grey or people in need of representation around British Columbia. Never mind

that; I'm going to decide."

[ Page 9525 ]

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

In the words of another executive: "I am the decider." He said: "I

am the decider." But in the process of electoral boundaries and election law —

well established — the Premier doesn't get to be the decider. He shouldn't get

to be the decider, and his interference with the commission work shows a

shocking disrespect — a disrespect for the independence of process, a disrespect

for the commission, a disrespect for those who went and gave briefs to the

commission, a disrespect for this House and what it had passed, a disrespect for

the right operation of the democratic process.

That's what this bill shows, and that's why we in this House will

be voting against this bill if it comes to a vote.

[1435]

Hon. Speaker, it continues. We've had — I have to tell you, hon.

Speaker — since this bill was introduced on October 24…. This bill was

introduced on October 24, a month ago. It has been brought back to this House

for debate three times: on November 7, November 8 and November 20. Given the

importance of this issue, that's hardly any time at all. This is an effort to

overturn the independent Electoral Boundaries Commission process.

Have we heard from the government in this debate? Have we heard

from the government? Where have they been? In fact, we've had a little better

representation from the government side in speaking to the bill, but it's been

very small so far. I look forward to hearing from the Minister of Environment,

hearing from the Minister of Education and hearing from the Minister of Advanced

Education.

Hon. S. Bond: Check the speakers list.

A. Dix: Let me say this. The Minister of Education did

speak on the bill. She and the Attorney General are the only members of cabinet

to speak on the bill. We look forward to hearing from all of them.

This is an important bill. It's an important piece of legislation,

and I think we and the people of British Columbia deserve to hear from people.

We didn't hear from them in the process. We didn't hear from them before the

Electoral Boundaries Commission. We haven't heard from them in this House, and

that process is important.

Let me quote — something I rarely do — from an editorial in the

Victoria Times Colonist — a very thoughtful editorial. What that

editorial said…. It's very, very interesting what that process said. "There's

nothing like time in power to convince politicians how vital they are. Back in

1996, when he was the new Liberal leader, the member for Vancouver–Point Grey

campaigned on a promise to reduce the number of MLAs." He campaigned to reduce

the number of MLAs, and I dare to say: how did that go? He campaigned on that

promise.

It goes on to say: "Now his government has introduced legislation

to overrule the independent Electoral Boundaries Commission and" — now, this is

a word that they like over there — "order it to add eight MLAs to the 79-seat

Legislature." Here's what the editorial said: "This is one legislative debate

worth close attention." Well, they're right.

It goes on to say: "The debate on this legislation offers the best

chance to ensure that is not happening in this case." What they refer to here is

about rigging riding boundaries. They say the debate in this House is important.

Why do they say it's important? Because the issues are fundamental to fairness

in the political process.

We as a Legislature passed legislation setting up an independent

commission. The government chooses, for reasons known only to it…. Its MLAs

choose not to participate in that process — with the exception, again, of the

member for Peace River South and the member from Bulkley Valley.

They choose not to take

part in that process. They don't give

evidence. They don't lead their communities. They don't take part. They step

back from that process. No member of cabinet, in their role as an MLA, takes

part in that process.

We bring it to this House, an important debate, because in this

debate we overrule that process. It's critical, in fact, to the process being

sustained that we have a serious debate, and that the government actually sets

out its intentions and what it believes, which it certainly hasn't done in this

debate.

What we have here is a debate where almost no members of the

executive council, with the exception of the Deputy Premier and the Attorney

General, who had to speak…. You have to speak when you introduce a bill at

second reading. You have to. He was obligated to speak. It would have been

impossible if he hadn't spoken. The debate would never have started.

That is one more than the minimum they've come up with — one more

than the minimum. I say with great respect to the Attorney General that I don't

consider him to be the minimum. It's just a number, and he happened to be the

guy introducing the legislation.

[1440]

Now, what is being decided here? We set up a process. The people

speak. The government doesn't participate, and the government decides. Here it

is — the principle of the bill. We need a lot more politicians. They've had an

epiphany, hon. Speaker.

You know, we heard the Minister of Transportation — and it was

high comic relief today — talk about his views before he went to office and

after he went to office — high comic relief as he was explaining to people on

Cambie Street how it was tough luck. It was tough luck that because of something

that he believes happened in 1998, they don't get any help now.

An Hon. Member: A decade ago.

A. Dix: A decade ago, and it's tough luck. They're out of

luck because they're citizens, just like the people who participated in this

process are out of luck.

So what the Premier has decided because, as you can tell, he

believes he is the decider…. He decides —

[ Page 9526 ]

not the independent commission, not the Legislature, but he decides. He is

the decider. He put out a press release, and he said: "What we need in this

province, contrary to everything I have ever said on this process in the past —

contrary to that — is a lot more politicians."

Now, hon. Speaker, I defy you…. Is there the "society for the

election of more politicians?" Does that society exist? No. SEMP — I don't think

it exists. No one came to the commission to say that. No one has written to the

Premier, I dare say, except perhaps some Liberal MLAs over there saying that we

need more politicians. Nobody wanted this except the Premier, and he is, as

we've said, the decider.

Eight new MLAs. Additional MLAs mean more costs. Heck, we're going

to have to expand the room. We're going to have to push out the wall, because

the Premier believes we need more politicians.

Did he, in fact, achieve his goals around rural representation? We

see in the bill, in fact, the dilution of rural representation.

I think it's really shocking that the Premier of B.C., who was

here in this House voting for an independent commission, who has consistently

said, as most of us say, that there is in fact a contract between citizen and

government that this be an independent process…. The times when that independent

process in recent years has been interfered with and tampered with live in

infamy in the politics of this province. I'm thinking of the "Gracie's finger"

incident.

The intent of independent commissions was to rid us of the very

politics which the Premier is now imposing on the process. He issued a

contradictory press release. He hasn't bothered to explain to this Legislature

in debate why he holds that view. He's simply the decider. He comes down from

the mountaintop and makes these decisions. It's wrong.

This bill, as the Victoria Times Colonist has clearly

stated, requires a full debate, a long debate, because the people of British

Columbia need an explanation from members of the government side. Why would you

overturn that process? Why would you disrespect everyone who participated in

that process? Why would you do such a thing?

J. Horgan: Four million bucks for the bonfire.

A. Dix: Four million dollars they wasted — gone — because

the Premier, who didn't participate in the process…. Remember, hon. Speaker. I

remind you that they didn't go to the hearings. They didn't respect the process.

They didn't participate in the process. They were just angry about the result.

So the Premier, who is the decider, got up and said: "I'm going to make the

decision."

But he hasn't come to this House and said why he made that

decision, why he is passing legislation that undermines and interferes with an

independent commission's work, why he's decided or why he's made this

extraordinary decision that it is the position of the government of British

Columbia that we need more politicians. Why has he decided that? Why, when in

fact he passed legislation to allow the commission and the public to have voice

on this question?

The commission and the public had voice on that question, and he

didn't like what they had to say. He's the decider; he gets to choose. It's

wrong. It is wrong to introduce legislation of this kind.

[1445]

The right thing to do is respect the independence of the process,

respect the commissioners and do what NDP MLAs from across British Columbia did,

which is fight for rural representation and respect the democratic rights of

citizens.

Who participated in this process? Well, speaking eloquently for

the interests of people in the Cariboo, the member for Cariboo South took part

before the commission. He and the member for Cariboo North both took

part in the

commission's activity, and they fought and argued for the views of their region.

Where was the government? They were nowhere.

The member for Surrey-Whalley and the member for Surrey–Green

Timbers went before the commission. They argued for the views and the needs of

their communities and for the public interest in Surrey — an area of British

Columbia that has been sadly neglected by this government in terms of health

care and other issues. The member for Surrey-Whalley went before the commission.

Where were the government members from Surrey? They didn't bother

to show up. They didn't show up to one hearing. Then they come to this House and

say: "Well, forget about the independent process. The Premier is the decider,

not the independent commission, not those people. Forget about that. It was a

joke. We set up the independent process, but we didn't mean it."

The next time they do that, the next time they have an independent

process with lots of recommendations, and they commit to implementing all of the

recommendations of the report…. Wait a second, hon. Speaker. When you start a

pattern of behaviour of disrespecting independent process and disrespecting the

public process, what happens? Well, we saw a bit of it today.

The government said that it was going to implement the Hughes

report, and then it failed to do so. Now it says: "We were right all along."

I think what you see in this process, in this legislation, and why

I think we need a full debate at second reading — why I believe that members on

the government side need to be heard from — is that they weren't heard from in

the first process. They didn't express their point of view, and this is a

fundamental process for democracy — the setting of fair boundaries so that

people get the representation they need and deserve in a democracy.

This isn't any small bill, and it's why so much effort went into

the process — so much effort by the commission, by people in this House, by

members of the government, by everybody — to set up an independent process.

[ Page 9527 ]

For it to be swept away by the diktat of the Premier is, I think,

a moment of disrespect. We've seen them before, but it's a new level of

disrespect.

This bill simply doesn't reflect what people told the Electoral

Boundaries Commission. It doesn't reflect it. It doesn't reflect the passionate

words of members on the opposition side, who fought. The member for Columbia

River–Revelstoke, who went to the commission and fought for his community — it

doesn't reflect his views. It doesn't reflect the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith,

who did the same thing.

Their views were heard by the commission. That's fair ball. We

were taught, when we grow up, to play by the rules. People of B.C. played by the

rules. The Premier won't play by the rules, and it's another reason why we

oppose this legislation.

The final thing I'd like to say on this bill or the next-to-final

thing, because what I say on legislation thankfully isn't decided by the decider

yet…. What I say about this legislation is that I think we are at a crossroads

in this democratic debate. It's not just the riding boundaries on

first-past-the-post.

There was enormous public interest and public consultation on

riding boundaries on the STV system. This is the basis of democratic debate. I

don't think it's right to say you're going to do something, to break that

promise and then to hide from the people when you do it. It is disrespectful to

democracy. It's this kind of behaviour which the Premier has shown with this

process — a process that he launched along with every member of this

Legislature.

[1450]

We all voted to respect the independent traditions of the

electoral boundary process. We all got together and agreed to it and spoke to it

and believed in it. That's why we voted for it. Then we went a step further, and

we believed in it by participating in that process because our job is to

represent our constituents — not to be the representatives of the government in

our constituencies, but to be representative of our constituencies here in

Victoria. So member after member on this side took

part in that process.

Now the disrespect rains down. We need to say no. Members on the

government side need to say no. This is power-hungry behaviour, and it's wrong.

It's shameful.

It's why we oppose this legislation. It's why members on the

government side have an obligation to rise and defend this legislation. It's why

members on the opposition side should have an absolute right to participate in

this debate.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Members on the opposition side represent every constituency on the

opposition side, and there should be no effort spared to ensure that every

single member on the opposition side is allowed to speak in this debate. There

should be no effort spared to ensure that at least some members on the

government side, on an issue this fundamental, this central to the independence

and the fairness of elections, an issue such as this — that people hear from the

government and people hear from their representatives…. We need to hear from

both sides. This debate is just starting. People need to hear….

The issues involved in this debate are fundamental to the

democratic system. We've only had three opportunities to debate it in the month

since they introduced this bill. Members of the government side have yet to

avail themselves, although I'm sure they will.

This bill undermines the democratic process. It requires full

debate, and I ask all members of this House to rise, because they owe it to

their constituents and to this province to express their views.

I urge people to vote no on this bill.

R. Austin: It's indeed a privilege for me to rise and speak

against Bill 39, the Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 2007. I do

so speaking here as a rural MLA from northern B.C.

I'd like to begin by mentioning that at the beginning of this

process, the member for Cariboo North and I were the first two MLAs to go and

meet with the Boundaries Commission right here in the Legislature. Yes, we were

in fact the guinea pigs, as they referred to us.

We went there to explain to them what our experiences are like,

being an MLA from a rural part of this great province. We went there with the

understanding that the members of the commission themselves probably live in an

urban setting and maybe have never lived or worked in a rural part of British

Columbia. We wanted them to hear firsthand, from both of us, about the

experiences of trying to do this job in the best way we can from a rural

setting.

Of course, both of us were very much aware of the difficult

position — indeed, the difficult job — that the Boundaries Commission has to do.

That is an extremely difficult task, accepting representation by population — a

fundamental, democratic right of one person, one vote; everybody having the

right to vote on election day — while also balancing that with a need to create

effective representation in a province such as British Columbia.

That is an incredible challenge for the commission, because we

have in this province a geography that is typical of many parts of Canada. We

have a geography where approximately 85 percent of the population live in one

small concentrated area of this province, leaving a vast area that is largely

underpopulated.

As a representative of a riding from northern B.C., an area that

represents 45 percent of the geography of this province but has only eight

members, we wanted to tell the members of the Boundaries Commission some of the

challenges that are required in creating effective representation. We all know

that they would know what rep by pop was, but we wanted them to understand fully

what effective representation was.

[1455]

When I first took this job, I remember meeting my colleagues for

the first time and sitting down with

[ Page 9528 ]

members who work in the lower mainland. I remember, at my first meeting at

caucus, the member sitting next to me, who described that he could walk around

his entire riding in an hour and a half.

Well, we had to inform this Electoral Boundaries Commission that

there are parts of this province — especially in northern British Columbia, the

Cariboo and the Kootenays — where you could drive for three or four hours and

never get to meet your MLA, never get to speak to them firsthand.

I don't believe — and I don't think British Columbians believe —

that the inability to actually sit down with their MLA and express their point

of view, have a reaction, listen and go back and forth — not via e-mail, not on

the phone, not on a fax, but to actually sit down with their MLA…. I think most

British Columbians would appreciate that it's different in an urban setting than

a rural setting.

So we went there, and we made this presentation. It was a

non-partisan presentation. We fully expected that the members from the

government side would go and say the same thing. As I mentioned, there are eight

MLAs who live in northern British Columbia, and it was fully my expectation that

the MLAs from northern B.C. who represent government areas would also go before

the commission, join in that process and explain to them that the last thing we

needed in British Columbia was to lose rural representation.

It's already hard enough as it is to bring the topics of rural B.C

to the agenda, to the forefront, in a province that's dominated by a large urban

centre like Greater Vancouver or the lower Island. I don't want to disparage

their rights to have representatives. Of course that's very, very important. I'm

glad that the Malahatians are well represented by the member for Malahat–Juan de

Fuca.

But for those of us who live in rural B.C…. They look at the map

and see just eight constituencies in northern British Columbia having to

represent that huge geographic area with all the complexities and the different

communities. Then to look at the lower mainland with…. What is it — 45 MLAs in

the lower mainland? I'm not sure exactly. It's a huge wad of MLAs.

If anybody wants to speak to their member, if you have somebody in

the lower mainland who has an issue, not only can they go and speak with their

representative but, in fact, if they get in their car or get on SkyTrain, they

can probably speak to ten or 20 MLAs in the lower mainland on the very same day.

That, of course, doesn't occur in my part of the world.

So we wanted to make sure that happened. I was very surprised that

the government MLAs did not participate in the process, as has been mentioned

already in previous speeches.

Interjections.

R. Austin: Very few MLAs spoke on behalf of their

constituents. I think that is the problem here. They didn't participate in the

process. Once the process fulfilled its mandate and listened to what everybody

had to say, then they came out with an initial map. Clearly, that initial map

upset a lot of people, not least of whom were the Premier of this province and

the cabinet and the government side.

I went to the first meeting that was held in Prince George, along

with all of the members of Prince George ridings. Indeed, it was a very

well-attended meeting. I went there in agreement with the people who said: "Why

are we losing rural representation?"

It was wrong, and I hoped that would have been addressed if we'd

carried on with the process and if the Boundaries Commission had carried on.

They were in Prince George. They went, I believe, to Burns Lake. They would have

been in my home community of Terrace just a couple of weeks later.

I can assure you that they would have heard the very same message

in my home community of Terrace as they did in Prince George, which was: "Please

don't remove representation from the rural parts of British Columbia." But then

what happened? The rug got pulled immediately out from under them, and the whole

process got scrapped.

[1500]

So we have an independent process set up to ensure that

politicians, MLAs, don't get to go and decide boundaries or gerrymander them.

They get given a mandate. They go do their work. Then when the initial map comes

out: "Oh, dearie me. We don't like it. Let's scrap it." I don't think that

speaks very highly of an independent process. In fact, I think that makes a

complete mockery of an independent boundary commission.

Then we find in this bill that the government is going to enact

the exact number of seats that are going to be in this House. What do they say

they're doing when they're going to do this? They're going to fix the problem

about the lack of rural representation. Quite extraordinary, when the bulk of

the people on the government side who represented rural areas, with the

exception of a couple, never even went before the commission to speak loudly

about rural representation.

After they find out that the map doesn't suit them, they then

decide that they're going to fix this problem by creating a boundary commission

that has to put in 87 seats. What does that do?

I'm speaking here as somebody from a rural riding. I fought for

rural representation.

What does this bill do? It weakens rural representation; that's

what it does. It actually takes it and makes it an even bigger challenge. If you

look at the number of rural MLAs relative to those in the urban areas under this

bill, you would find that rural representation, when and if this bill is

enacted, will be even worse off than it is under the current status quo, never

mind under the suggestions of the Boundaries Commission.

That's why I'm speaking out against this bill — because it weakens

and makes it even harder for rural British Columbians to have their particular

issues brought to the forefront of the government agenda.

I think it is important to recognize some of the things that were

said during the process. I listened to

[ Page 9529 ]

one of the commissioners on radio, Stewart Ladyman, who commented that

wherever the commission went around British Columbia, whether it was in the

lower mainland, the north, the Cariboo or the Kootenays…. He stated very clearly

that one message that was loud and clear was that British Columbians, by and

large, didn't want any more politicians — okay? They didn't want any more

politicians.

Yet what do we have here in Bill 39? A government deciding on its

own, irrespective of this entire process, to add eight more politicians. It is

absolutely perplexing. But the reason why they want to add eight more

politicians, of course, is to ensure that they get the politicians put into

places that they want. That is sheer political interference — nothing less.

We have heard a little bit of what people have said when they went

around the province, and we've also heard what people have said in ridings such

as mine. When the commission came to Terrace in their initial hearings on this

subject, we met in a hotel. People from all walks of life came to the Coast

hotel in Terrace, met with the commission and said, largely, some of the things

that I've been speaking to here.

They were speaking from a northern perspective. They were saying:

"Listen. It is very hard to get representation that is adequate, that is

comparable to that of people who live in cities, so please don't take away any

MLAs from northern B.C." They heard that from all walks of life. People who

voted Liberal, people who voted NDP all came, and they joined in this process.

It was a non-partisan process. They came with a central message. So they were

also annoyed.

I'll tell you what annoyed them even more, hon. Speaker. It was

the fact that they didn't get a chance to speak to the initial map and to the

initial recommendations of this Boundaries Commission. They never got a chance

to voice their opinions the way that the people in Prince George did. No.

Why didn't they get that chance? Because they had the rug pulled

from underneath them by a government that decided: "Well, we don't need an

independent commission here. We don't like what they've done. Let's just stop

the whole process. Let's use the Legislature."

Surely the whole purpose of having an independent commission is so

we don't have this debate here in the Legislature. That's the whole purpose of

having an independent commission on something as fundamental as this. We

shouldn't be here discussing this. We should never have been here discussing

this.

[1505]

It should have been given to the commission. They should have done

their work. They should have listened to people and had a chance to have a

debate around the initial plans that they put forward.

They had an opportunity to put up to — what? — four more seats.

They used two, but they had an opportunity to put up to four more seats. Guess

what. If they'd had that opportunity to go around the province and listen to

what people, particularly people from rural British Columbia, had to say…. I

think it's fair to say that it's people in rural British Columbia who were most

upset by the initial map and by the initial suggestions of the Boundaries

Commission.

There's a process in place. There's a chance to have a second

sober opinion, to go and listen to what people have to say around B.C., but they

were never given that chance. Here we are today having a debate in this chamber

that shouldn't even be here.

I don't think British Columbians want to have politicians sitting

around discussing how many MLAs, how many new politicians, are required. I think

most British Columbians would regard that as somewhat self-serving. They think

that this should have been done by an independent commission. Let them go and

decide how many MLAs should be here in this province.

I think that what we are seeing here is a usurping of the process.

It's an indictment against having an independent commission. There's no point

having independent bodies anymore, quite frankly, if we're going to have a

government that sets up independent commissions and then decides: "Oh, we don't

like their work. Let's scrap it."

Where do we go from here? We could have had the Minister of

Children and Families today standing up and saying: "Well, yeah, I know there's

an independent commissioner for children and youth, but I don't like what she

has to say, so let's scrap it. Let's get rid of her. Let's get rid of her

commission."

No, no. You know what? We don't need any of that. That's what we

don't need — independent commissions being discarded just so the Premier and his

government can get their way and get a new map that perhaps they like a little

bit more than the previous map that they didn't like.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

R. Austin: I went along with the Leader of the Opposition

to Prince George to speak out against the lack of rural representation. This

bill, as I've pointed out quite clearly, weakens rural representation. It

weakens it. It makes the number of rural MLAs relative to the urban MLAs less

than it is today. That doesn't strengthen rural representation.

I think what should have been done is that the commission should

have been allowed to continue its process. It should have been allowed to go and

listen to what people all around the province — in Terrace, in the Cariboo, in

the Kootenays — have to say. Not the politicians, the people. They would have

heard very clearly the same message that I'm giving today, the same message that

the people in Prince George did have the opportunity to say.

Then that commission may have gone back and decided on its own,

with its mandate: "Oh yes. We've heard, and we've listened. Then we have to go

and put back some more MLAs." But that's up to the commission to decide. They

had the opportunity to put up to six

[ Page 9530 ]

people, six new MLAs. That was their decision, but they have not been allowed

to make that decision.

That is a travesty, and that is what is wrong with Bill 39 and

what is wrong with the whole process of bringing it back here. It shouldn't be

back here. That commission should have been allowed to fulfil its mandate, but

that didn't happen.

It's a sad day for democracy here in British Columbia. It's a sad

day for all of those who live in rural B.C., because frankly it is a hard thing

to get representation that is effective in rural B.C., with the long distances

we have to travel.

The people in my riding would agree entirely with me because they

know well that eight people representing all of northern B.C. is a hard enough

job relative to those who live in Greater Vancouver. But having eight MLAs and

another five or six in the lower mainland doesn't help make that job any easier.

This bill weakens rural representation, and that's why I am adamantly opposed to

it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

R. Austin: Hon. Speaker, I now move adjournment of the

debate and reserve my right to speak — or your right to speak; sorry.

[1510]

R. Austin moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

Bill 45.

Committee of the Whole House

MAA-NULTH FIRST NATIONS

FINAL AGREEMENT ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 45; K.

Whittred in the chair.

The committee met at 3:12 p.m.

section 3 (continued) .

S. Fraser: In the interests of expedience…. I know we have

limited time at committee stage. I've done a little bit of checking here, and I

think we can move right through to the mining section, which is 4.2, "Tenured

subsurface resources." I know that the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca has a few

questions around that.

J. Horgan: It's a pleasure to participate in committee

stage of the Maa-nulth Final Agreement Act. I want to take the opportunity while

the minister is here…. I see the Minister of Mines, so he can also weigh in, I'm

sure, if there's a whisper to be had. If the minister will indulge me, we're

going to be bouncing all over the section. I think that was the practice from

Tsawwassen, rather than going a

section at a time. Is that what we're planning

on doing? Great.

I'd like to start with

section 4.2.3 with respect to "Provincial

Law applies to the exploration, development," etc. Could the minister explain to

me what is meant by that

section and when these tenured subsurface resources are

to be as if they were owned by the province? What's the intent of that section?

Hon. M. de Jong: What the

section confirms is that although

the Maa-nulth First Nations will have ownership of the subsurface resources on

Maa-nulth First Nations lands or treaty settlement lands, the province will

continue to manage tenured subsurface resources and, in so doing, will apply

provincial laws to the exploration, development, extraction and production of

those types of resources as if they are owned by the provincial Crown.

There's an ownership component that is addressed and a management

or administrative regulatory component that's addressed.

[1515]

J. Horgan: It's that management regulatory component that I

want to explore a little bit further with the minister, particularly if

subsurface rights were owned outside of the Maa-nulth Nations but still within

Nuu-chah-nulth territory. What responsibility or obligation would there be to

the owners of those lands outside? Would they be the same as those lands inside

with respect to exploration or development?

What I mean is that you're within the Nuu-chah-nulth territory.

There's an obligation for accommodation and consultation outside of the treatied

area. What would the difference be if a mining company, for example, held

subsurface rights in Nuu-chah-nulth territory outside of the bounds of the

treaty versus those subsurface rights now held by the Huu-ay-aht, for example?

What would the relationship be with government — the Huu-ay-aht versus a

developer or a proponent who has subsurface rights outside?

So it's two parts. What's the responsibility to that company to

consult with the first nations that are not part of the treaty, and what would

the responsibility of the Huu-ay-aht be with respect to the regulatory aspects

of the legislation or the minister's responsibility?

Hon. M. de Jong: Hopefully, I've understood the question

correctly. Maybe I can answer it in two parts or three parts. I think the

member's question related to a situation where, let's say, a tenure holder of

subsurface rights outside of treaty settlement lands — so on a spot that is

outside of the treaty settlement lands — wished to pursue the development of

that tenure. What are their obligations to other first nations?

In that case, the obligation to consult, to accommodate, would be

guided very much by the common law rules around that. Those obligations

vis-à-vis non-parties to

[ Page 9531 ]

this treaty are not changed. The obligations as they relate to parties of the

treaty, the five first nations, are of course guided by the provisions of the

agreement itself. But for first nations who are not a party to this agreement,

the obligation to consult — and potentially accommodate, depending on the

circumstance — would continue unabated.

J. Horgan: I appreciate that. The minister did actually get

to where I wanted to be. I'm extending from his answer. This may not hold, but

let's assume company A has subsurface rights in Nuu-chah-nulth territory, and

they have a requirement to consult and accommodate, as the minister outlines.

They also secure from the Huu-ay-aht subsurface rights within the treaty

territory. At that point, there would be no obligation to consult or accommodate

because that has already been done, inasmuch as the holder of those subsurface

rights has transferred them, that being the Huu-ay-aht.

Is that correct, or is there an additional requirement beyond what

would be expected there?

[1520]

Hon. M. de Jong: In the scenario that we're now discussing,

I think the member has identified a situation in which — he mentioned the

Huu-ay-aht — one of the five first nations that are party to this agreement

convey to an agency, entity or company rights that they hold under this

agreement, subsurface rights on treaty settlement lands.

Insofar as the relationship between that company or individual or

agency and the first nation, that would presumably be guided by the contractual

arrangement they strike. Because we're talking now about subsurface rights to

treaty settlement lands, I wouldn't envisage any obligation on the part of that

agency to consult or accommodate with other first nations, as long as we are

talking about activity that is restricted to the treaty settlement lands

themselves.

J. Horgan: I think that's all I need, but I was thinking of

those lands that may overlap. For example, if you find an ore body within the

treaty lands that extends outside of the treaty lands to other territories that

are claimed by first nations, at what point does the accommodation and

consultation end? It ends at the boundary of the treaty lands — okay.

I'd like to pop back up the page, still in

chapter 4, to 4.1.3. I

don't have my Tsawwassen bill available, but is that language similar to the

language in the Tsawwassen treaty? Is it in place, as well, for the same reasons

the minister gave me, in that Atomic Energy of Canada wanted to have it in

there?

Hon. M. de Jong: The advice I have is that the language is

the same as in the Tsawwassen, and therefore, my explanation would be the same.

J. Horgan: I am pleased that the minister didn't give me

the explanation again. It was certainly an acceptable explanation when he gave

it to me the first time.

Moving to

section 4.2.8: "Maa nulth First Nation Lands are treated

as private lands under Provincial Law respecting Subsurface Resources for the

purposes of determining access rights and compensation rights associated with

any proposed entrance, occupation or use of the surface by holders of Subsurface

Tenures."

Can the minister explain to me what the intent of that

section is?

Hon. M. de Jong: What the specific provision is designed to

do is point out, highlight and acknowledge that treaty land subject to existing

tenures has been transferred from Crown ownership to first nation ownership.

That's the first point. Some of the lands that are being transferred as a part

of this agreement actually have some existing tenures.

[1525]

By treating the land in question as private land rather than Crown

land, it imports the requirement that existing tenure holders would have to

provide written notice of their intention to access what will then be treaty

settlement lands — written notice before commencing any activity or operation.

So it is by treating the lands as private lands that that obligation — it's my

recollection as a result of some amendments that were made — now extends across

the province. This imports that similar requirement to the developments of

existing tenure holders, if they wish to pursue development on the treaty

settlement lands.

J. Horgan: I think the minister references a bill that we

passed in the spring about existing tenures and the requirement for notification

in a period of time and a form for that notification.

As we read further through that section, we learn that if there

are disagreements or disputes, provincial law will apply. Again, I suppose I

could work it out by going through the maps, but if there's a number that staff

have available of tenure holders who may be affected by this section…?

Hon. M. de Jong: I can advise the member that I'm

referencing appendices E-11 through E-12 and beyond, which list the various

tenures. Whether they are subsurface, guide-outfitters, water rights, traplines,

the appendices list those existing tenures in the various lands.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for getting me to the right

page. As I go through appendix 11, I see water licences. I see permit to occupy

Crown lands, more water licences, permit to occupy Crown lands…. What would the

occupation of Crown land be, and why do I not see anything in those two pages

with respect to subsurface rights?

Interjection.

J. Horgan: In 11 or 12?

Hon. M. de Jong: It's 12.

[ Page 9532 ]

J. Horgan: Okay, 12. I thought you just said 11. I'm sorry.

With that, I believe we can close off

chapter 4. If we can skip 5

and 6 and go straight to

chapter 7, I can dispense with the issues that I want

to discuss, and we can come back to those. Is that acceptable to the minister,

if the critic is inclined to do that? I don't know if he is or not.

The Chair: That will be satisfactory. Continue, Member.

[1530]

J. Horgan: Thank you, Chair. It's with respect to

section

7.8, "Use of existing gravel pits on Maa-nulth First Nation lands." The whole

notion of aggregate and gravel, as the member will know from living in the

valley, is a big challenge in terms of its value and importance to road

construction, residential construction, commercial construction and the general

economic well-being of British Columbia.

However, with gravel pits come very unhappy neighbours. I'm

wondering if the process that the Minister of Mines designates for pit operators

or aggregate extraction will also apply in this case on treaty lands.

Hon. M. de Jong: I thought I would begin by just putting on

the record what the intention is behind the section. It is to ensure that there

is an ability to access local aggregate and gravel reserves for the purpose of

maintaining provincial roads in the area. This is not designed to facilitate

guaranteed access in order for the Crown to step in and acquire aggregate and

then transport it hundreds of kilometres away for commercial purposes. It is

designed, however, to ensure that local gravel and aggregate is available to

address local road needs.

Just parenthetically, depending on the first nation we're talking

about, I think there is great interest as part of some general economic

development initiatives to see significant improvement in some of the roads and

access ways to some of the communities.

That will take time, but what this provision does, and is intended

to do, is ensure that the Crown has access — but specifically for the purpose of

maintaining local roads, not exporting mass quantities of aggregate outside of

the area.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

J. Horgan: So, then, in terms of aggregate as an economic

development opportunity for the Maa-nulth Nations, nothing in these sections

restricts that activity?

If there are no restrictions, then I go back to the initial

question, which would be: provincial law that applies to the policies and

procedures of the Minister of Mines would have to be followed and public

meetings would have to be held by the first nation before commercial extraction

for purposes other than described by the minister would apply?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'll try and break this down a bit. The

decision around whether or not to authorize an aggregate operation on treaty

settlement lands ultimately would rest with the Maa-nulth, with the member first

nation. So they have that land use authority as it relates to treaty settlement

lands.

Now, to the extent that an operation like that may have a

spillover effect or spillover issues — the use of provincial roads — provincial

regulation would apply. Complying with environmental standards, fisheries

requirements — those standards would also apply.

[1535]

The triggering decision, if you will, though, which is whether or

not to allow an aggregate operation on treaty settlement lands, would ultimately

be made by the host first nation that owns the land.

J. Horgan: So the chief inspector of mines, who has

authority over those issues on non–treaty lands, would not have any role or

responsibility in the development of an aggregate operation on treaty lands.

And, again, it would be for economic development.

You think of the Bamfield road, for example. It would be tough to

haul a whole lot of aggregate out of there unless the Crown was going in to find

deposits and fix the road first. Normally, in other areas of the province…. I

don't know what the case is with Nisga'a. I should have looked into that before

I raised the question. But we didn't touch upon aggregate in any way that I can

recall in discussions of Tsawwassen.

I'm wondering if this is now an opportunity for the Maa-nulth

First Nations to conduct economic development on their territories without any

consultation to the governing authority that others outside of the territories

would have to consult, which is the chief inspector of mines.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think I might have clumsily responded to

the first in these series of questions. The decision about whether or not to

develop a commercial aggregate operation on treaty settlement lands…. When I

said it would be made by the first nation, I was intending to convey that the

first nation couldn't have that decision foisted upon them. Someone can't come

along and say: "Now we're opening up a commercial aggregate operation on your

land." If they don't want it to happen, it isn't going to happen.

If they do, however, decide that that is something they wish to

pursue, the advice I have is that the provincial legislation would continue to

be applicable; the inspector of mines, I think it is, would continue to play a

role; and they would be obliged to follow through on that process. There would

be involvement by the inspector of mines and that department. But I say again:

the decision about whether or not to pursue that kind of opportunity would first

have to be made by the first nation themselves.

J. Horgan: I've just had the other minister confirm that

that's the right answer, so that's the one I expected to hear. It wasn't my

intent in raising the question to

[ Page 9533 ]

suggest that it would be foisted. It was in terms of what processes apply to

an economic opportunity. If I heard the minister correctly, provincial law

applies as it would for other non–treaty land economic decisions with respect to

that commodity.

I'd like to just touch on, before we get to water and, in

particular, water licences, one more go at subsurface rights and mining activity

in general on treaty lands. If I understand the minister correctly and as I've

read the chapters in the act, it's my conclusion that all subsurface activity,

exploration and development is at the call of the holder of those rights, which

would be the Maa-nulth Nations, save and except those examples highlighted in

the appendices — two mineral tenures that I can see — and that all provincial

laws would apply.

[1540]

There's no special circumstance. Permitting approval, regulation

and any other responsibilities of the Crown remain, and the activity is

conducted as if it were a private corporation or a private landowner.

Hon. M. de Jong: I just want to make sure I'm conveying

accurate information to the member, so I'll deal with the first part of his

statement first.

I think the member's assertion, which I believe is correct, is

that the triggering mechanism for advancing a development of the sort that the

member has described is, firstly, the willingness of the host first nation to

proceed. That's absent that consent in whatever form the first nation deems

appropriate through their land use planning processes and permitting process.

Until that happens, nothing's going to happen.

The member then asked me to confirm the second part of his

statement, which I think I can, but I want to hear it again to make sure I'm

providing accurate information.

J. Horgan: Perhaps I'll say it differently, and that will

help. My objective here is to define, for those who would be arguing that

special rights are being transmitted to the Maa-nulth Nations. It's my belief,

based on what I've read and on what you've said, that the Maa-nulth will be

treated as any other landowner or tenure holder and that the province is

responsible for regulation to ensure safety, environmental stewardship and other

issues that are paramount to the Minister of Mines.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the only additional point I would

make is, of course, that by virtue of the provisions of this agreement, the

Maa-nulth First Nations acquire some law-making authorities over their own land.

This is another example: subsurface rights — development of subsurface resources

where, to the extent that there is any conflict between those rules and

regulations and applicable federal and provincial laws, federal and provincial

laws will prevail.

The other distinguishing feature, I suppose, is that again, in the

case of subsurface resources where revenues or royalties are generated on treaty

settlement lands, those royalties would be remitted to the Maa-nulth First

Nations as opposed to the Crown.

[1545]

J. Horgan: I was almost there. My motivation here is to

deflect those that would argue that special rights are being passed to the

Maa-nulth Nations. For the matters of health, safety and environmental

stewardship, provincial and federal laws will apply, and no standards below

those will be created through Maa-nulth laws.

Hon. M. de Jong: I agree with that statement.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for that. With that, again

mindful that the critic may go back to 5 and 6, I'd like to move to

chapter 8,

particularly 8.6, the "Hydro power reservations" section.

section 8.6.1 the act suggests that "In addition to the

Maa-nulth First Nation water reservations established in…8.2.1," which, as I see

it, is a general water reservation for other purposes. When it comes to power

generation, the reservation is for "unrecorded water of the Streams specified"

in the paragraph below.

Is that

section there because we don't have records for the flows

on those creeks, or is it there for some other purpose?

Hon. M. de Jong: The water reservations that are referred

to in 8.6.1 are there — and they are time-limited, as I think the member

referred to or can see from the

section — ostensibly to provide the first

nations involved with an opportunity to conduct some studies on whether or not a

run-of-the-river type of hydro project is feasible or viable. They will have

that period of time to conduct studies of the stream flows and the volumes, but

they are time-limited, as set out in the section.

J. Horgan: I see that there is a time limit on those creeks

that are identified, a through e. As we go into

schedule 1, however, and it's by

nation, there are water flow monthly percentages available, and it lists a

number of creeks and rivers. In the Huu-ay-aht example, the Sarita is

identified, as a monthly percentage of available flow, as 25 percent in that

schedule, yet the Sarita is included in

section 8.6.1.

I'm wondering, firstly, if I could get an explanation as to how

the monthly available flow was determined and for what purpose.

[1550]

Hon. M. de Jong: I apologize for the delay.

I'm not sure this will answer the member's question in its

entirety. The important distinction is that which exists between 8.2.1 and

8.6.1, which on the one hand refers to "a water reservation for domestic,

industrial, and agricultural purposes," which is the general reservation of

specified amounts of water,

whereas 8.6.1 is a reservation that isn't quantified

in the same way but is designed to facilitate a study to see whether or not, in

addition to the other allocations and environmental requirements, it would be

possible to develop hydroelectric capacity on the particular river.

So one is a specified water reservation for domestic, industrial

and agricultural purposes, and the other is a

[ Page 9534 ]

temporary reservation to allow for studies to take place around the possible

development of hydroelectric capacity.

J. Horgan: Then those rivers and streams identified in

8.6.1 are the only ones that are contemplated for a potential hydro development?

I know the area quite well, and there are numerous rivers, streams and creeks in

there. Many of them are identified in the schedules.

But by identifying those rivers in particular…. Was it a result of

a request from the first nations? Was it in consultation with B.C. Hydro or

other independent power producers? How did we arrive at those rivers? Was it the

government, or was it the first nation that asked for these?

Hon. M. de Jong: Yes, the rivers that are identified in

8.6.1 were the product of a negotiation — largely identified by the first

nations. They have expressed an interest in pursuing feasibility studies around

the development of hydroelectric potential on those rivers and streams.

I don't, however, want to leave the impression that there may not

be other rivers in the territory that someone, even the first nations involved,

might want to investigate, because there may well be. I'm not aware of what they

are.

But these were specific candidates for which there is interest in

conducting studies today and, as a product of the negotiation, an agreement to

provide those temporary reservations to allow those studies to go forward.

[1555]

J. Horgan: I guess why I look at 8.2.0 and 8.2.1 in

particular and those purposes that are defined, and at 8.6.1 and 8.6.2, is the

notion of storage of water. The schedules point out that the streams are

identified as partially within the Maa-nulth territories, so the rivers and

streams in question traverse other landowners' and other potential owners' water

rights. The storage issue is one that could compromise other people's rights

along those rivers.

Is that one of the rationales for the reservation, or is it simply

because those were the best candidates? I appreciate that there could be other

candidates, but those were identified during the negotiation and were given

reservations because of the storage aspects, or is that just an unintended

consequence?

Hon. M. de Jong: If we read the provisions in their

totality…. I don't want to leave the impression that if, as a result of the

studies of the unrecorded flows and volumes, decisions were made on one or any

of the rivers listed in 8.6.1, there is a potential for developing hydroelectric

capacity on the rivers. The member will see from 8.6.2 that if that development

is to occur, it must occur in conformity with applicable federal and provincial

laws.

When I hear the word "storage," I begin to think about significant

impacts on other users or other land areas. Those studies presumably would be

done, but these sections do not — or

section 8.6.1 does not — say that we'll do

a study and, if there are sufficient volumes, a development will automatically

follow. If it's going to follow, it must do so in conformity with federal and

provincial laws. What 8.6.1 does say is that over a specified period of time,

studies will take place and the possibility of pursuing the development of that

hydroelectric capacity will be examined.

J. Horgan: In 8.6.2 it says, after federal and provincial

law: "and there is sufficient Available Flow." That statement — "sufficient

Available Flow" — would normally be enough to satisfy me. But living as I have

for many, many years on Vancouver Island and knowing that the rains come most

years — and we plan on the rains coming most years — and snowpack is what it

is…. Hydro and others who plan the management of our rivers and streams for the

benefit of all British Columbians and for licence holders quite often have a bad

year or two, or ten. In a climate change environment, what is of sufficient

available flow this year may be different ten years out.

Because of the reservations and because of the opportunities that

I know the Maa-nulth want to pursue, I think I'll leave that section, unless the

minister has any more comfort he can provide me that other licence holders will

not be adversely affected by these reservations and that the notions of storage

and sufficient available flow will be just that, assuming that other rights will

not be affected.

[1600]

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the additional assurance I can

give to the member relates to the fact that "available flow" is a defined term

chapter 29, and it speaks to those issues that one usually associates with

the need to ensure that appropriate flow levels are maintained in a watercourse.

S. Fraser: I'll give a heads-up to the minister and his

staff that we'll be moving on to forestry very soon. I just have to backtrack on

a couple of questions for

chapter 5 on access, a road issue.

So 5.1.1 says :"…each Maa nulth First Nation has the same rights

and obligations in respect of public access to its Maa nulth First Nation Lands

as other owners of estates in fee simple have in respect of public access to

their land."

Just what rights and obligations are you referring to —

liabilities? What's being referred to there?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the key feature to these

provisions is to point out that the Maa-nulth First Nations liability respecting

public access on their public treaty lands is very similar to the liability of

the provincial Crown for public access on vacant undeveloped Crown lands. So

these sections are designed to try and convey with precision what the

obligations are and the extent of the liability would be for Maa-nulth First

Nations post–effective date on public treaty lands.

[ Page 9535 ]

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that.

Then, as far as responsibility and liabilities go, and its

comparability to the liability of provincial government for public access, is

there a requirement implied with this that the roads, as accessed, have to be up

to some minimal public safety standard?

[1605]

Hon. M. de Jong: Because the member referred specifically

to roadways, we were consulting the corridor-access provisions of the agreement.

But the general rule that I can relay to the member as it relates to roadways is

that a similar standard of care would accrue to the Maa-nulth First Nations as

would accrue to the provincial Crown.

That doesn't mean every road has got to be a paved, four-lane

highway. It does mean, however, that with respect to the roadways, a similar

standard of reasonableness would be applied and a similar standard of care would

apply to the maintenance of Maa-nulth roads as would to Crown roads.

S. Fraser: There's a problem, though. If you take the

Huu-ay-aht First Nation, there is only one road in and out of there that goes to

their traditional territory. It's access, though, to their traditional

territory. That's the Bamfield Highway, as it's called. From Port Alberni you

travel essentially through private managed forest land, but part of it is Crown.

It is access to Crown, and it is also access to the Huu-ay-aht First Nation.

That road is not up to any public standard. The Minister of

Transportation knows this, but it's actually to a level much lower than that.

We're seeing it reflected in accidents, injuries and deaths, too. There is no

requirement for the government to provide, as far as I can tell, safe access to

public lands, even though the public is led to that road through signage that's

from the province.

Is there a standard? I mean, is there actually, considering that

the province isn't providing adequate public safe access to the Huu-ay-aht First

Nation now or to the town of Bamfield or to the public lands in that region?

What requirement would there be for the Huu-ay-aht First Nation or any Maa-nulth

first nation to have any safe standard of road if it's not required by the

province?

It says "comparable to the liability of the provincial Crown for

public access to…." Well, right now the provincial Crown isn't providing safe

access to Huu-ay-aht First Nation. Would there be any requirement for them to do

anything with the road? Is this statement moot? Does it mean anything?

Hon. M. de Jong: Firstly, with respect to the question of

liability and the Maa-nulth First Nation government, I'm going to refer the

member, for possible future reference, to

chapter 13 and 13.35.8, which deals

with the questions of liability.

[1610]

I would also say as a general rule, however, that whilst there are

certainly different roads of differing quality, the Crown does operate the roads

and is expected to maintain a certain standard of care. There are tests for

liability and for reasonableness that the courts do apply against Crown-owned

highways. As I say, via 13.35.8, there are tests for how liabilities and how

those protections, immunities, limitations would be applied vis-à-vis the

Maa-nulth First Nations and the Maa-nulth First Nations government.

S. Fraser: Thanks for that from the minister.

The Bamfield road to the Huu-ay-aht is not up to public safety

standards, and it's not required to be. There is no maintenance done by the

province on it to remedy that. That being said, I am going to turn this over to

forestry.

B. Simpson: In

chapter 9, on forest resources, 9.1.1

indicates that the Maa-nulth First Nations own the forest resources and range

resources. Exactly how much land is involved, and in particular, what's the

harvestable land base that's involved with this treaty?

Hon. M. de Jong: The Maa-nulth will own the forest resource

on approximately 24,500 hectares. Now, I'll qualify that statement already by

pointing out that there has been agreement around some park management. We can

deduct those amounts.

I'm happy to do that if the member wants to pursue that. Generally

speaking, we're talking about 24,500 hectares of land upon which they would have

jurisdiction over the forest resource.

B. Simpson: The minister mentioned park management. Is any

of this land base coming out of existing parks, protected areas or any form of

set-aside or growth management zones — anything in the region that's currently

designated as protected or as a park?

Hon. M. de Jong: The answer is yes. That may be something

we want to pursue in more detail under the parks chapter, because there is

actually a significant land exchange involving land that comes out and land that

goes into the Thunderbird reserve. It may be worthwhile to pursue that when we

actually get to the

chapter around parks, but the answer to the member's

question is yes.

[1615]

B. Simpson: Just for clarification, will the West Coast

Trail be impacted at all by this? Is any of the land base coming out of that

region?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm advised no. That all remains federal

Crown land.

B. Simpson: With respect to the land base, then, of the

24,500 or so hectares, is that all harvestable land base? Would that all have

forest and range values on that land base?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm advised that the analysis suggests

that upwards of 60 percent of that land base is

[ Page 9536 ]

potentially harvestable. What I can't tell the member at this point, though I

will pursue, is what economic test was applied for determining harvestability.

The fact that there's a tree there, I suppose, renders it harvestable.

Can it be harvested in what we would conventionally regard as an

economically viable way? I'll try to ascertain whether that 60 percent takes

that kind of test into account. The figure I have right now is that roughly 60

percent of the settlement lands are defined as possessing potentially

harvestable timber.

B. Simpson: With respect to where this land is coming

from…. We'll canvass the parks portion of it, as the minister suggests, but

certain areas of this have to be coming out of existing forest licences,

existing tenures. Which tenures are going to be impacted, which operating areas

— either on a TSA basis or TFLs?

[1620]

Hon. M. de Jong: Some of the volume will come from B.C.

Timber Sales. The majority of the lands, I'm advised, are within TFL 44, held by

Western. Then Strathcona and Arrowsmith timber supply areas and TFL 54 are held,

I believe, by Interfor presently. I think I mentioned at the outset that B.C.

Timber Sales has some potential volumes that would be impacted there.

Those are the timber supply areas and the licensees that I am

aware of at this stage for whom there may be impacts.

B. Simpson: Is TFL 57 also part of it?

Hon. M. de Jong: Not to my knowledge.

B. Simpson: Now, I assume that these areas have already

been identified. So that's all mapped out. A map exists. These tenure holders

are fully apprised of the potential impact of this treaty on them. Is that

correct?

Hon. M. de Jong: The lines are obviously on the map as it

relates to the treaty settlement areas. It's then really a question in the

timber supply areas and the TFLs that we've been talking about assigning

volumes.

The other thing that the member probably knows is that in advance

of the effective date now, the other mechanism that has been utilized to, as it

were, protect the lands for treaty settlement is the

part 13 designation. If we

took all the various overlays, we would also see lines on the map relating to

the

part 13 designation, which has been utilized to ensure that the lands are

available and the forest resources are available for the settlement we're now

discussing.

B. Simpson: Just for clarification, for the public record,

it would be good if the minister would explain what

part 13 was — I was asked

the question over here, and I think others may — and how that protects the

interests so that it's not, as some would couch it: "Log it while you're

talking." If we could get clarification on the implications of

part 13 on this.

Hon. M. de Jong: We talk about

part 13. It's something that

comes up with increased frequency as we move through various settlement

processes. The member is correct.

What will happen is…. It's the tension between two forces. On the

one hand, a negotiation is taking place, and a first nation will say: "Okay,

we're at the table. We're identifying some settlement lands, but every day we

talk, the resource is being reduced by licensees who are operating on the

strength of authority they have from the government under a different process."

That, of course, causes concern.

The other challenge that exists is that the Forest Act, which

regulates the assignment of cutting rates and cutting permits and tenure rights,

imposes upon officials, district managers, certain obligations that when certain

requirements have been met by a licensee or a potential licensee, they must

grant the permit or the licence.

[1625]

The

part 13 tool was developed to provide a mechanism by which the

Crown could step in through an order-in-council and say: "All right. Because

these negotiations are far enough advanced and we are hopeful that we will bring

resolution, we are going to take an area, apply what