H0409pm 05

H0409pm 05

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

4th Session, 37th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Wednesday, April 9, 2003 Afternoon Sitting Volume 14, Number 5 THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE RICHMOND, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Honourable Iona Campagnolo 4TH SESSION, 37TH PARLIAMENT SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Claude Richmond EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council................................................................................. .........................Hon. Gordon Campbell Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations.............................................................................. ..................... Hon.

Greg Halsey-Brandt Deputy Premier and Minister of Education ....................................................................................... ..................................Hon. Christy Clark Minister of Advanced Education................................................................................................. ...........................................Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.................................................................................... ..............................Hon.

John van Dongen Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations.............................................................. .................... Hon. Geoff Plant Minister of Children and Family Development.................................................................................... ..............................Hon. Gordon Hogg Minister of State for Early Childhood Development.............................................................................. .................................Hon.

Linda Reid Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services......................................................................... .................. Hon. George Abbott Minister of State for Community Charter........................................................................................ .................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Minister of State for Women's Equality ......................................................................................... .................................... Hon.

Lynn Stephens Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise ................................................................................ ..................................Hon. Rick Thorpe Minister of State for Deregulation ............................................................................................. ............................................ Hon. Kevin Falcon Minister of Energy and Mines................................................................................................... ....................................... Hon.

Richard Neufeld Minister of Finance ............................................................................................................ ....................................................... Hon. Gary Collins Minister of Forests ............................................................................................................ .................................................. Hon. Michael de Jong Minister of Health Planning .................................................................................................... ............................................ Hon.

Sindi Hawkins Minister of Health Services.................................................................................................... ................................................ Hon. Colin Hansen Minister of State for Mental Health ............................................................................................ ...................................Hon. Gulzar S. Cheema Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care ............................................................................. Hon.

Katherine Whittred Minister of Human Resources.................................................................................................... ............................................Hon. Murray Coell Minister of Management Services................................................................................................ .........................................Hon. Sandy Santori Minister of Provincial Revenue................................................................................................. ................................................Hon.

Bill Barisoff Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ................................................................................ ..................................Hon. Rich Coleman Minister of Skills Development and Labour...................................................................................... .............................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Minister of Sustainable Resource Management.................................................................................... ..................................Hon.

Stan Hagen Minister of Transportation..................................................................................................... .................................................... Hon. Judith Reid Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection..................................................................................... ....................................Hon. Joyce Murray LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Deputy Speaker................................................................................................................. ..............................................................

John Weisbeck Leader of the Opposition ....................................................................................................... ...........................................................Joy MacPhail Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ........................................................................................... .............................................. Harold Long Clerk of the Legislative Assembly .............................................................................................. .........................................E.

George MacMinn Clerk Assistant ................................................................................................................ ................................................................... Robert Vaive Clerk Assistant and Law Clerk .................................................................................................. ........................................................ Ian D. Izard Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees........................................................................................ ............................................Craig H.

James Clerk Assistant/Committee Clerk................................................................................................ ............................................ Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sergeant-at-Arms ............................................................................................................... .........................................................A.A. Humphreys Director, Hansard Services ..................................................................................................... ........................................

Anthony Dambrauskas Legislative Librarian.......................................................................................................... ............................................................. Joan A. Barton Legislative Comptroller ........................................................................................................ .................................................................Peter Bray Published by British Columbia Hansard Services, and printed under the authority of the Speaker by the Queen's Printer, Victoria.

Rates: single issue, $2.85; per calendar year, mailed daily, $298. GST extra. Agent: Crown Publications Inc., 521 Fort St., Victoria, B.C. V8W 1E7. Telephone: (250) 386-4636. Fax: 386-0221. www.leg.bc.ca/hansard In addition to printed transcripts, Hansard Services publishes transcripts on the Internet and broadcasts Chamber debates on television.

Party Standings: Liberal 75; New Democratic 2; Independent Liberal 2. ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Abbott, Hon. George (L) ....................................................................... Shuswap Anderson, Val J. (L) .............................................................Vancouver-Langara Barisoff, Hon. Bill (L)............................................. Penticton–Okanagan Valley Bell, Pat (L).........................................................................Prince George North Belsey, Bill (L).................................................................................

North Coast Bennett, Bill (L) ........................................................................... East Kootenay Bhullar, Tony (Ind. L) ................................................................. Surrey-Newton Bloy, Harry (L).................................................................................. Burquitlam Bond, Hon. Shirley (L).........................................Prince George–Mount Robson Bray, Jeff (L)......................................................................Victoria–Beacon H ill Brenzinger, Elayne (L) ...............................................................

Surrey-Whalley Brice, Susan (L) ............................................................................Saanich South Bruce, Hon. Graham P. (L)................................................ Cowichan-Ladysmith Campbell, Hon. Gordon (L)............................................. Vancouver–Point Grey Cheema, Hon. Gulzar S. (L) ..........................................Surrey–Panorama Ridge Chong, Ida (L)................................................................ Oak Bay–Gordon Head Christensen, Tom (L) .............................................................

Okanagan-Vernon Chutter, Dave (L) ........................................................................... Yale-L illooet Clark, Hon. Christy (L) ..................................................Port Moody–Westwood Cobb, Walt (L) ............................................................................. Cariboo South Coell, Hon. Murray (L) ........................................ Saanich North and the Islands Coleman, Hon. Rich (L) .............................................. Fort Langley–Aldergrove Collins, Hon.

Gary (L).........................................................Vancouver-Fairview de Jong, Hon. Michael (L)....................................... Abbotsford–Mount Lehman Falcon, Hon. Kevin (L) .......................................................... Surrey-Cloverdale Hagen, Hon. Stan (L) ................................................................... Comox Valley Halsey-Brandt, Hon. Greg (L) ..................................................Richmond Centre Hamilton, Arnie (L)............................................................Esquimalt-Metchosin Hansen, Hon.

Colin (L) .....................................................Vancouver-Quilchena Harris, Roger (L)......................................................................................Skeena Hawes, Randy (L) ............................................................ Maple Ridge–Mission Hawkins, Hon. Sindi (L).......................................................... Kelowna-Mission Hayer, Dave S. (L) ................................................................... Surrey-Tynehead Hogg, Hon. Gordon (L) ........................................................

Surrey–White Rock Hunter, Mike (L) ...................................................................................Nanaimo Jarvis, Daniel (L)...................................................... North Vancouver–Seymour Johnston, Ken (L)............................................................ Vancouver-Fraserview Kerr, Brian J. (L).............................................................. Malahat–Juan de Fuca Krueger, Kevin (L).................................................

Kamloops–North Thompson Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP) ...............................Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Lee, Richard T. (L).......................................................................Burnaby North Lekstrom, Blair (L)................................................................. Peace River South Les, John (L) .......................................................................... Ch illiwack-Sumas Locke, Brenda (L) ...........................................................

Surrey–Green Timbers Long, Harold (L) ...................................................Powell River–Sunshine Coast MacKay, Dennis (L)....................................................... Bulkley Valley–Stikine McMahon, Wendy (L).............................................Columbia River–Revelstoke MacPhail, Joy (NDP) ..........................................................

Vancouver-Hastings Manhas, Karn (L) .............................................Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Masi, Reni (L) ...................................................................................Delta North Mayencourt, Lorne (L) ..........................................................Vancouver-Burrard Murray, Hon. Joyce (L) ........................................................... New Westminster Nebbeling, Hon. Ted (L) .......................................... West Vancouver–Garibaldi Nettleton, Paul (Ind. L)..................................................Prince George–Omineca Neufeld, Hon.

Richard (L)...................................................... Peace River North Nijjar, Rob (L)...................................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Nuraney, John (L) ...............................................................Burnaby-W illingdon Orr, Sheila (L) ...........................................................................Victoria-Hillside Penner, Barry (L)....................................................................... Ch illiwack-Kent Plant, Hon. Geoff (L) ......................................................... Richmond-Steveston Reid, Hon.

Judith (L)............................................................Nanaimo-Parksv ille Reid, Hon. Linda (L) ................................................................... Richmond East Richmond, Hon. Claude (L) ................................................................ Kamloops Roddick, Valerie (L)..........................................................................Delta South Sahota, Patty (L).....................................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Santori, Hon. Sandy (L)..............................................West Kootenay–Boundary Stephens, Hon.

Lynn (L) ........................................................................ Langley Stewart, Ken (L)...................................................... Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Stewart, Richard (L) ...................................................... Coquitlam-Maillardville Suffredine, Blair F. (L) ................................................................Nelson-Creston Sultan, Ralph (L)....................................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Thorpe, Hon.

Rick (L) ..........................................................Okanagan-Westside Trumper, Gillian (L)................................................................Alberni-Qualicum van Dongen, Hon. John (L) ................................................Abbotsford-Clayburn Visser, Rod (L).................................................................................North Island Weisbeck, John (L).........................................................Kelowna–Lake Country Whittred, Hon.

Katherine (L) ...................................North Vancouver–Lonsdale Wilson, John (L)........................................................................... Cariboo North Wong, Patrick (L)............................................................Vancouver-Kensington LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Clayburn....................................................... Hon. John van Dongen Abbotsford–Mount Lehman ..............................................Hon.

Michael de Jong Alberni-Qualicum.......................................................................G illian Trumper Bulkley Valley–Stikine ..............................................................Dennis MacKay Burnaby North..............................................................................Richard T. Lee Burnaby-Edmonds............................................................................Patty Sahota Burnaby-Willingdon......................................................................

John Nuraney Burquitlam ........................................................................................ Harry Bloy Cariboo North ..................................................................................John Wilson Cariboo South .................................................................................... Walt Cobb Chilliwack-Kent ............................................................................. Barry Penner Chilliwack-Sumas .................................................................................

John Les Columbia River–Revelstoke....................................................Wendy McMahon Comox Valley .......................................................................... Hon. Stan Hagen Coquitlam-Maillardville .............................................................Richard Stewart Cowichan-Ladysmith .......................................................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Delta North.......................................................................................... Reni Masi Delta South................................................................................

Valerie Roddick East Kootenay .................................................................................. Bill Bennett Esquimalt-Metchosin...................................................................Arnie Hamilton Fort Langley–Aldergrove ..................................................... Hon. Rich Coleman Kamloops ....................................................................... Hon. Claude Richmond Kamloops–North Thompson ........................................................Kevin Krueger Kelowna–Lake Country...............................................................

John Weisbeck Kelowna-Mission ................................................................ Hon. Sindi Hawkins Langley ............................................................................... Hon. Lynn Stephens Malahat–Juan de Fuca .....................................................................Brian J. Kerr Maple Ridge–Mission ................................................................... Randy Hawes Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows .............................................................Ken Stewart Nanaimo..........................................................................................

Mike Hunter Nanaimo-Parksville ...................................................................Hon. Judith Reid Nelson-Creston.......................................................................Blair F. Suffredine New Westminster ..................................................................Hon. Joyce Murray North Coast ........................................................................................Bill Belsey North Island........................................................................................Rod Visser North Vancouver–Lonsdale.......................................... Hon.

Katherine Wh ittred North Vancouver–Seymour .............................................................Daniel Jarvis Oak Bay–Gordon Head .......................................................................Ida Chong Okanagan-Vernon .................................................................... Tom Christensen Okanagan-Westside.................................................................Hon. Rick Thorpe Peace River North .............................................................Hon. Richard Neufeld Peace River South .......................................................................

Blair Lekstrom Penticton–Okanagan Valley ....................................................Hon. Bill Barisoff Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain.................................................... Karn Manhas Port Moody–Westwood......................................................... Hon. Christy Clark Powell River–Sunshine Coast.......................................................... Harold Long Prince George North................................................................................Pat Bell Prince George–Mount Robson................................................Hon.

Shirley Bond Prince George–Omineca................................................................Paul Nettleton Richmond Centre......................................................... Hon. Greg Halsey-Brandt Richmond East .......................................................................... Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ................................................................ Hon. Geoff Plant Saanich North and the Islands ............................................... Hon. Murray Coell Saanich South...................................................................................

Susan Brice Shuswap .............................................................................. Hon. George Abbott Skeena.............................................................................................Roger Harris Surrey-Cloverdale ................................................................. Hon. Kevin Falcon Surrey–Green Timbers .................................................................. Brenda Locke Surrey-Newton ............................................................................... Tony Bhullar Surrey–Panorama Ridge................................................. Hon.

Gulzar S. Cheema Surrey-Tynehead .......................................................................... Dave S. Hayer Surrey-Whalley ...................................................................... Elayne Brenzinger Surrey–White Rock ...............................................................Hon. Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Burrard................................................................. Lorne Mayencourt Vancouver-Fairview............................................................... Hon.

Gary Co llins Vancouver-Fraserview ...................................................................Ken Johnston Vancouver-Hastings .......................................................................Joy MacPhail Vancouver-Kensington...................................................................Patrick Wong Vancouver-Kingsway..........................................................................Rob Nijjar Vancouver-Langara....................................................................Val J.

Anderson Vancouver–Mount Pleasant............................................Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey ................................................... Hon. Gordon Campbell Vancouver-Quilchena............................................................ Hon. Colin Hansen Victoria–Beacon Hill.............................................................................Jeff Bray Victoria-Hillside.................................................................................. Sheila Orr West Kootenay–Boundary.................................................... Hon.

Sandy Santori West Vancouver–Capilano ..............................................................Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Garibaldi ................................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Yale-Lillooet .................................................................................. Dave Chutter

CONTENTS Wednesday, April 9, 2003 Afternoon Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Introductions by Members....................................................................................................... ............................................... 6147 Statements (Standing Order 25B).............................................................................................................................. .............. 6147 Seal hunt on B.C. coast B. Belsey Cancer B. Locke Battle of Vimy Ridge B.

Kerr Oral Questions................................................................................................................. ......................................................... 6148 Government portal project J. MacPhail Hon. S. Santori Sale of methadone B. Locke Hon. G. Cheema Federal court ruling on parliamentary privilege T. Bhullar Hon. G. Plant Mental health services in Prince Rupert B. Belsey Hon. G. Cheema Funding for research and development R. Lee Hon. S. Bond Sale of B.C. Rail assets J. MacPhail Hon. J. Reid Francois Lake ferry service D. MacKay Hon. J.

Reid Motions on Notice.............................................................................................................. ...................................................... 6150 Removal of John van Dongen from select standing committees (Motion 94) Hon. G. Plant Powers of Crown Corporations Committee (Motion 95) Hon. G. Plant Referral of reports to committees and powers of Public Accounts Committee (Motion 96) Hon. G. Plant Powers of Finance and Government Services Committee (Motion 97) Hon. G.

Plant Committee of Supply ............................................................................................................ ................................................... 6152 Estimates: Ministry of Attorney General and Ministry Responsible for Treaty Negotiations Hon. G. Plant J. MacPhail J. Nuraney D. MacKay L. Mayencourt K. Stewart

6147 WEDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 2003 The House met at 2:03 p.m. Prayers. [1405] Introductions by Members J. Weisbeck: Somewhere up there in the very busy gallery are a couple of members from Kelowna, Al- ison McNeill and Leslie Martin. Would the House please make them welcome. J. Bray: Up in the members' gallery are two very special people joining us here from Vancouver. Cer- tainly, they are the group most responsible for me being here in this House and for anything else. I'd ask the House to please welcome my mother and father, Marshall Bray, QC, and Evelyn Bray, to the House. R.

Hawes: In the House today we have Nancy Wells, who is superintendent of school district 75 in Mission, one of the finest administrators that we have in this province. With her is Dianne Parkinson, prin- cipal of Riverside Trades, Training and Technology Centre in Mission, which is one of the more innova- tive creations of any of the school districts in this province. Could the House please make both of them welcome. P. Wong: I'm pleased to introduce a group of 86 students from Sir Charles Tupper Secondary School in my riding. This school is designated as an inner-city school and serves 1,000 students.

For a large percent- age of the student population, English is a second language. Tupper has always sent the largest group of social science students to visit the Legislature, total- ling 160 students every year. The Fraser Institute's recent report card, unfortu- nately, gave the school a failing grade. Last month I went to the school and met with the principal, teach- ers and many students. I certainly agreed with what Principal Palmer said: "Tupper is a positive working and learning environment.

Students are polite and respectful, and they have one of the best arts and drama programs in the Vancouver area." In order to keep the students motivated, I'm pleased to inform the House that under the better community partnership outreach network that has recently been established by volunteers in my riding, the Vancouver Cathay Lions Club has agreed to offer a $500 scholarship to this school. This is the third scholarship that I have personally garnered for this school under this network program. Would the House please give all the students, teacher Mr. David Dou- gall, along with Mr. Stan Hack, Mr.

Dave Trask, Ms. Anne Young and Ms. Cornelia Sussman, a very warm welcome. Statements (Standing Order 25

B) SEAL HUNT ON B.C. COAST B. Belsey: I rise today to talk about a first nations seal hunt on B.C.'s coast. Last week I rose in the House and asked why the federal government considered it safe to explore for oil and gas off the east coast but not off the west coast. Today I rise to ask: why does the federal government allow a seal hunt on the east coast but bans a hunt on the west coast? The seal population off our coastal waters has grown to a level that now endangers stocks of salmon, herring, cod, oolichan and even the trout in the rivers and streams.

Seals congregate in the rivers and estuaries, hunt in packs and can virtually wipe out a salmon run or devastate a herring spawn. The ever-increasing number of these ani- mals has resulted in seals being found further up rivers than ever before, well above tidal waters and well into fresh water. These mammals are there for one reason and one reason only: to feed on the spawning fish. Workers managing spawning grounds have noted that many of the returning fish are terribly scarred from seal attacks.

Chief Roy Jones Jr. of Haida Gwaii, since an earlier meeting with myself and the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, has been working diligently to promote a sustainable commercial industry that uses every part of the harvested seal. From the nose to the flippers, Chief Jones has sought out markets. From clothing to human consumption to medicines, the en- tire harvested seal can be marketed. In Mr. Jones's own words: "The controversies sur- rounding a seal hunt are so complex that narrow- mindedness will have to be overcome by many ex- treme environmentalists.

These people, I fear, will be the ones that will never understand the concept of a seal hunt, and are people who may be most dangerous to myself and anyone involved in a seal hunt." Mr. Speaker, I join Chief Jones in hoping that we can develop a harvest based on science and not on rhetoric. [1410] CANCER B. Locke: On December 17, 1999, my cell phone rang. It was my doctor telling me my test results came back positive. I had cancer, and he had scheduled my surgery for the 28th, less than two weeks away. I spent four days in hospital and six months recuperating.

The word "cancer" is frightening and for many people, in- cluding myself, life-changing. At first, I felt very alone, but soon learned that I was anything but. Every year over 17,000 people in B.C. are diagnosed, and approximately 8,300 deaths occur. Cancer is now the second leading cause of death in Canada. While one- third of us will be diagnosed with the disease in our lifetime, thanks to the advancement in prevention and treatment more than half of us will survive. The month of April is Canadian Cancer Society's annual campaign. During this month, they raise funds

6148 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 2003 for cancer support programs and research. In my community of Surrey they raised $63,000 during the door-to-door campaign last year. Amazing people spend endless hours in our fight to beat this disease, and I would like to thank all the doctors, nurses, re- searchers, support staff, peer support groups and counsellors for all of their hard work, and most of all our families and friends and employers for supporting cancer patients. Cancer for me was a refocus, a re- evaluation of what is important in life. Cancer can be and is being beaten every single day.

BATTLE OF VIMY RIDGE B. Kerr: The World War I battle of Vimy Ridge is considered to be one of the most significant points in Canadian military history. More than 100,000 troops from coast to coast, with brigades from every region of Canada, fought at Vimy under a unified Canadian command. The victory of Vimy Ridge was a turning point in the war for the Allies and an important mo- ment in the building of the Canadian nation. As I look around this House I see a well-lit, com- fortable room that is warm and safe. Eighty-six years ago it was a very different story.

Men did not spend four years in a building such as this. They spent four years in the trenches. In the trenches, our grandfathers and great-grandfathers lived lives of filth and misery. Barbed wire channelled soldiers into virtual killing grounds where machine guns would hack them to pieces. Men were chopped up by bullets, shredded by exploding shells, suffocated by gas, incinerated by flame throwers and smothered by caved-in trenches. Horror had become commonplace, slaughter had be- come mundane, and death was sometimes callously regarded as normal wastage.

This was the reality of war and something we should never forget. Last Sunday the West Shore Royal Canadian Legion commemorated the battle of Vimy Ridge with a candle- light ceremony at the West Shore Vimy memorial, the only Vimy memorial outside of France. There they dedi- cated maple leaf plaques to honour the veterans who sacrificed so much, so that we could be here today. This April 3 the Parliament of Canada declared April 9 t o o f f i c i a l l y b e V i m y R i d g e D a y .

O n t h i s d a y a n d o n every subsequent April 9, flags on the Peace Tower in Ottawa will fly at half-staff to commemorate those who lost their lives in this pivotal battle of the First World War. On this day we, too, should take time in our deliberations to remember the great sacrifices that were made by those who came before us so that we could debate freely all the issues that are important to us today. We should remem- ber, too, that pivotal day in Canadian history. [1415] Oral Questions GOVERNMENT PORTAL PROJECT J.

MacPhail: Just the other night in this chamber, the Minister of Management Services admitted that the Premier's pet portal project — pet portal pratfall — has s o f a r p r o v e d t o b e a d i s m a l f a i l u r e — a $7.1 million failure. But the news gets worse. Now it appears the minister saddled with this boondoggle is going to have to come up with an additional $12 million to make the Premier's portal promise a reality.

Will the minister stand today and assure this House that he will table the business plan for the Premier's portal project, including an accounting of the $7.1 mil- lion spent so far, before one more dime is thrown into this digital dumpster? Hon. S. Santori: As I indicated to the member the other night in estimates, this is a three-year project. The total cost over the three years is $18 million, and we will come in on budget and deliver services to the peo- ple of this province. Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question. J.

MacPhail: Only this government would claim to be 400 percent over budget and still claim they're coming in on budget. Actually, this government has set a new record for being 400 percent over budget on any project. At least we know that the $6 million that the Premier is giving to his spin machine across the street is being well spent. Only they could label a black hole a portal. Last year the Premier spent only $2.5 million of his own budget on the portal pratfall. Where did he get the rest of the money?

Well, the Premier sucked up $3.5 mil- lion last year from every other ministry in government — money that should have gone to make children safe from earthquakes at South Park Elementary and Van Tech. Instead it went to the Premier's portal passion. Can the Minister of Management Services tell us to- day how much money is going to be shovelled into this portal pit instead of being spent on making schools safe? He says $18 million. It's already 400 percent over budget. Hon. S. Santori: I am totally amazed that the mem- ber has the audacity to stand up in this House and talk to us about meeting budgets.

I think that member's record speaks for itself. If I may share with you, Mr. Speaker, what e-government means to that member. It means endless overruns and excessive spending, and it means easy come, easy go. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order. Order, please. J. MacPhail: I can understand why that minister… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Leader of the Op- position has a further supplementary question. J. MacPhail: …is embarrassed by a 400 percent overrun, and that doesn't even mean it's going to work

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6149 after the 400 percent overrun — massive cost overruns and zip, zip-a-dee-do-dah to show for it. Thousands of British Columbians have been added to the surgery wait-lists since this government took over. They know how that $7 million could have been better spent. Again, can the minister responsible for ensuring that the Premier gets his bonus — and that's all he's doing here — assure all those on the surgical wait-lists that not one day will be added to their pain and suffer- ing just so the Premier's digital dream isn't dashed? Interjections. Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Hon. S. Santori: It's quite obvious that the member opposite is getting a… Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Mr. Minister, we will continue when the Leader of the Opposition has come to order. Please continue. [1420] Hon. S. Santori: …real good reputation in terms of not getting her facts straight. I would suggest she's the one who's been going on a fishing trip lately, and not someone else. As I indicated before, and I will continue to say to the member and to this House, the project is for $18 million over three years. We will be on budget. Interjections. Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. SALE OF METHADONE B. Locke: My question is to the Minister of State for Mental Health. Methadone is recognized as an effective treatment for heroin addicts looking to kick their ad- diction. However, in my community of Surrey there is a concern that methadone is being sold illegally on the street and contributing to the drug problem. Can the minister tell my constituents who has the responsibility to enforce the rules with regard to the sale of metha- done and to ensure that pharmacies are not contribut- ing to the street drug problem? Hon. G.

Cheema: Last Friday our deputy minister met with the Surrey council to address this controver- sial methadone bylaw. She was joined by others, in- cluding representatives from the College of Physicians and the College of Pharmacists. The College of Physi- cians oversees the B.C. methadone program and li- censes physicians to prescribe methadone as a treat- ment for heroin addiction. The College of Pharmacists licenses and oversees the pharmacists that dispense methadone. Pharmacists must follow the instructions of doctors' prescriptions when dispensing methadone, and that's true for all medical prescriptions.

If they don't, there are consequences, and the College of Pharmacists is willing to apply those consequences. For the members' interest, tomorrow the ministry and the college are again meeting with the Surrey council to solve this issue. FEDERAL COURT RULING ON PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE T. Bhullar: My question is to the Attorney General. It's with respect to the case of Vaid that places limits, as I read it, on parliamentary privilege. It is my under- standing that the federal government has requested leave to the Supreme Court of Canada for appeal.

Should leave be granted, will the Attorney General call for a vote in this House on whether or not we should apply for intervener status? Hon. G. Plant: Well, I appreciate the work of the member in bringing to our attention what I believe is an important court decision. It's a decision of the Federal Court of Appeal. From what I've seen of it so far, I think it says some important things about parliamentary privi- lege, the relationship between the rights and privileges of members and the important duties of a body like a human rights commission.

The usual practice we follow in the Ministry of Attorney General is that we wait to see if leave is in fact granted by the Supreme Court of Can- ada and then make a decision about intervener status. I'd certainly be happy to hear more from the member about his views on whether we should seek intervener status, and indeed I would welcome the views of any member of the House on that particular question. MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IN PRINCE RUPERT B. Belsey: My question is to the Minister of State for Mental Health.

A truly tragic death of a Prince Rupert woman last month has raised some serious concerns over local mental health services. This death was espe- cially tragic in that the deceased left behind two teen- aged children and a husband, who have many questions about the quality of mental health care. Can the Minister of State for Mental Health tell my constituents in Prince Rupert what changes, if any, to mental health service delivery are being considered for Prince Rupert? Hon. G.

Cheema: I would like to inform the mem- ber that the director of mental health and addictions has been in close contact with the family members to ensure that a support system is in place for them dur- ing this very difficult time. Presently the NHA has shifted staffing resources over to Prince Rupert as an interim measure to cover off the staffing shortages. [1425] NHA is also working with the hospital and the Minis- try of Children and Family Development to strengthen services. They are also improving information systems

6150 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 2003 and using tele–mental health services to increase services in the area. NHA is also looking at developing supportive independent living units in Prince Rupert. A forensic liaison worker's position has also just been approved. It's important to note that the merging of mental health and addiction has been very helpful for NHA in working to resolve the issues of mental health in Prince Rupert. FUNDING FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT R. Lee: My question is to the Minister of Advanced Education.

Many of my constituents have come to me for clarification on this government's commitment to research and d e v e l op me nt . M any o f t hem hav e b ee n he ari ng t hat the government has cut back funding in this area. To the Minister of Advanced Education: is this true? How much has the government committed to R and D this year? Hon. S. Bond: Probably there's no more compelling reason to talk about research than the stories shared by my colleague from Surrey–Green Timbers today.

Also, the information that we've received is that as of today, the B.C. genome centre has received a viral sample from Toronto and is working very hard, as we speak, to look at cracking the challenging situation that's faced with SARS in the country. This government recognizes the importance of re- search and development. In fact, we have invested al- most $700 million across a number of ministries in this government to ensure that research and development not only continues, but that we're able to attract the best and brightest researchers to the province. SALE OF B.C. RAIL ASSETS J.

MacPhail: On February 12 the Premier said in his infomercial that northern communities have told the government it shouldn't sell B.C. Rail's railbed. The Premier said he wouldn't. He said: "They've told us we should keep the tracks, and we will." Last week the Premier began dodging even on that commitment. Here's his quote last week. "Keeping the tracks and the railbed" has now become his new quote. "The B.C. Rail right-of-way will be maintained in pub- lic hands." There's a world of difference there. Tracks and railbeds are physical assets, and a right-of-way is not.

Perhaps the Minister of Transportation could sort out the Premier's confusion. Can she confirm that the Premier will stand by his commitment to the people of British Columbia that the province will retain ownership of B.C. Rail's tracks and railbed? Simple question — yes or no. Hon. J. Reid: Yes. FRANCOIS LAKE FERRY SERVICE D. MacKay: M y q u e s t i o n i s t o t h e M i n i s t e r o f Transportation. The Francois Lake ferry near Burns Lake is a key link in the movement of timber, agri- cultural products and people across Francois Lake.

Our government has committed to transfer control to a private operator who will be obliged to continue toll-free service at existing service levels. Can the Minister of Transportation outline the request-for-proposal process for the Francois Lake ferry and tell us when she anticipates a new opera- tor will take its place? Hon. J. Reid: The Francois Lake ferry service is very important to residents, industry and commer- cial interests in that area. There is a request for pro- posals right now. Those proposals have to be sub- mitted by May 9.

Part of that request is that the suc- cessful proponent would have to provide an 18- hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week toll-free service but also be able to provide for the additional capacity that is necessary to service the industry and the commercial interests. [1430] The proponent, we're suggesting, would have to be able to provide that service by January 1, 2004. We will receive the proposals by May 9. We'll be able to assess them, and then we will be able to as- sign the successful proponent. [End of question period.] Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Orders of the Day Hon. G.

Plant: I move Motion 94 in the orders of the day, standing in the name of the Minister of Fi- nance and House Leader. Mr. Speaker: Motion 94 has been called, hon. members. Leave will be required to call Motion 94. Without disturbing the priorities of any other mo- tions, shall leave be granted? Leave granted. Motions on Notice REMOVAL OF JOHN VAN DONGEN FROM SELECT STANDING COMMITTEES Hon. G.

Plant: Leave having been granted, I move M o t i o n 94 s t and i ng i n t he na m e o f t he M i ni s t e r o f F i - nance in the orders of the day. [That the Honourable John van Dongen, MLA be removed from the Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations and the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts.] Motion approved.

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6151 POWERS OF CROWN CORPORATIONS COMMITTEE Hon. G. Plant: I now move Motion 95 standing in the orders of the day in the name of the Minister of Finance. [That the Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations be appointed to review the annual reports and service plans of British Columbia Crown Corporations. In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations, the Committee be empowered: (

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

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

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

d) to retain personnel as required to assist the Committee, and shall report to the House on matters referred to the Committee during the Third Session of the Thirty-seventh Parliament and the current session and as soon as possible or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.] Motion approved.

REFERRAL OF REPORTS TO COMMITTEES AND POWERS OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE Hon. G. Plant: I m o v e M o t i o n 9 6 i n t h e o r d e r s o f t h e d a y , a l s o s t a n d i n g i n t h e n a m e o f t h e M i n i s t e r o f Finance. [1. That the reports of the Auditor General of British Columbia deposited with the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly during the Fourth Session of the Thirty- seventh Parliament be deemed referred to the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts, with the exception of the report referred to in

section 22 of the Auditor General Act which is referred to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, and in addition that the following reports of the Auditor General of British Columbia be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts: • Managing Contaminated Sites on Provincial Lands (December 2002); • Review of Estimates Related to Vancouver's Bid to Stage the 2010 Olympic Winter Games and Paralympic Winter Games (January 2003); • Building Better Reports: Our Review of the 2001/02 Reports of Government (January 2003); • Follow-up Report on TransLink (December 2002); • Follow-up Report on Managing Interface Fire Risks (November 2002); and • Follow-up Report on Earthquake Preparedness (July 2002). 2.

That the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts be the committee referred to in sections 2, 6, 7, 10, 13 and 14 of the Auditor General Act. In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts, the Committee be empowered: (

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

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

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

d) to retain personnel as required to assist the Committee, and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.] Motion approved. POWERS OF FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE Hon. G.

Plant: I m o v e M o t i o n 9 7 s t a n d i n g i n t h e name of the Minister of Finance in the orders of the day. [That the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services be empowered: 1. To examine, inquire into and make recommendations with respect to the pre-budget consultation report prepared by the Minister of Finance in accordance with

section 2 of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act and, in particular, to: (

a) Conduct public consultations across British Columbia on proposals and recommendations regarding the provincial budget and fiscal policy for the coming fiscal year by any means the committee considers appropriate, including but not limited to public meetings, telephone and electronic means; (

b) Prepare a report no later than November 15, 2003 on the results of those consultations; and 2. (

a) To consider and make recommendations on the annual reports, rolling three-year service plans and budgets of the following statutory officers: (

i) Auditor General; (ii) Chief Electoral Officer; (iii) Conflict of Interest Commissioner; (iv) Information and Privacy Commissioner; (

v) Ombudsman; (vi) Police Complaint Commissioner; and, (

b) To examine, inquire into and make recommendations with respect to other matters brought to the Committee's attention by any of the Officers listed in 2 (

a) above. 3. That the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services be the committee referred to in sections 19, 20, 21 and 23 of the Auditor General Act and that the performance report in

section 22 of the Auditor General Act be referred to the committee.

6152 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 2003 In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, the committee shall be empowered: (

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

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned and during any sitting of the House; (

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

d) to retain personnel as required to assist the committee; and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment or at the next following session, as the case may be, to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.] Motion approved. Hon. G. Plant: I call Committee of Supply.

For the information of members we will be debating the esti- mates of the Ministry of Attorney General and treaty negotiations office. [1435] Committee of Supply The House in Committee of Supply B; J. Weisbeck in the chair. The committee met at 2:36 p.m. ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL AND MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR TREATY NEGOTIATIONS On vote 11: ministry operations, $379,990,000. Hon. G. Plant: I'm very pleased to have the oppor- tunity to begin the estimates debate on behalf of the Ministry of Attorney General and the treaty negotia- tions office.

I think, for the convenience of members, we'll begin with the discussion of the estimates of the treaty negotiations office, and I have a few remarks to make as an introduction to that discussion. I really am pleased to have the opportunity to rise today and speak to and in support of the budget of the treaty negotiations office. This office carries out a very important role in helping us all as legislators and help- ing government promote economic renewal in British Columbia.

I wanted to look back just a little bit on the year past as a way of setting the stage for what I hope will happen in the fiscal year that we have now embarked upon. As all members know, in the spring of 2002 we kept commitments that we had made during the 2001 election campaign by conducting a provincewide refer- endum to provide British Columbians with the oppor- tunity to help guide the province's approach to treaty- making. We asked the people of British Columbia to think about what they wanted to achieve from the treaty process.

It was my view and it was the view of government — and I know it was in particular the view of the Pre- mier — that notwithstanding the efforts that people had made over the course of nearly a decade to engage the public in a discussion about the treaty process, the public felt cut out of that discussion. The public had not been engaged in the treaty process in the way that I think is and was a necessary precondition to success in that process. It was our view that the treaty process, in fact, would not succeed and will not succeed if we don't manage to engage the public.

The referendum achieved that objective and more. Over the course of the spring we had a vigorous public discussion about some difficult and important issues in British Columbia. We asked the people of British Co- lumbia to provide government with a mandate on a set of principles that would guide the province in the treaty negotiation process. We recognized going into that discussion that Brit- ish Columbia is only one of three parties to each treaty negotiation.

Each party brings its own vision to the table, and we as the government of British Columbia have an obligation to ensure that when we speak at the treaty table, we have some sense of what it is that the people of British Columbia want us to achieve on their behalf. That objective took the form of the statements of principle in the referendum ballot that was circulated as part of the referendum conducted last spring. [1440] It was a novel exercise in direct democracy.

I don't know that there have been any other examples of a referendum conducted by mail-in ballot on a provincewide basis outside the election cycle, particu- larly when it was not a simple yes or no question. This referendum asked people to think about principles. It asked them to think about what they wanted their gov- ernment to achieve on their behalf at the treaty table. We received over three-quarters of a million re- turned mail-in ballots. The eight statements of princi- ple that were on the referendum ballot were, in fact, overwhelmingly endorsed by the public.

They have been adopted by government and represent a frame- work that we will take forward as we move through the months and years to come. It's important to remind members that the referen- dum was conducted on the basis that we were commit- ted to the treaty process — that we intended to use the referendum to reinvigorate the treaty process. In the months since, we have moved forward on those com- mitments.

We have endeavoured to build upon the momentum that was created by the referendum, by the heightened public awareness and by the recognition that this was and is an important task and public policy responsibility of government. In the months since the referendum we have worked hard to bridge the gap that exists among the positions of the different parties in the process — to try and see if we can, each of us at each table where pro- gress is possible, take the steps that are necessary to

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6153 find the common ground that we need if we're going to achieve agreement. Really, we have, I think, made great strides towards that. It's hard. It's difficult work, but I think it is time — it may be past time — after vir- tually a decade of work, to see if we can actually con- clude the agreements that the treaty process was origi- nally intended to produce. Let me review some of the things that we have been doing to try to help achieve the outcome of negotiated agreements.

Communications and consultation con- tinue to be important responsibilities of government. We had a useful public conversation in the referen- dum, but the referendum was never intended to be the end of that conversation. In fact, we are anticipating at least 50 meetings with local governments and stake- holders about treaty issues in the fiscal year '03-04. We will continue to communicate. We will continue to con- sult. We will continue to listen. We've also recognized that it's time to focus the en- ergy and resources that we bring to the treaty process.

We've looked across the landscape of some 42 tables that are officially or formally involved in the B.C. Treaty Commission process. We've asked ourselves whether there are some tables where the promise of success is more real in the short term. We've reorgan- ized the treaty negotiations office to focus our re- sources on those tables where we believe there is op- portunity for early success. We call those the "break- through tables." We are, I believe, making good pro- gress with six first nations at breakthrough tables around the province.

One of the commitments in the treaty negotiations office service plan is a commitment to conclude four to six treaty-related agreements in fiscal '03-04. Those agreements may include full agreements-in-principle. They may include sector-specific agreements or land protection agreements. The challenge and the opportu- nity have been to work within the framework estab- lished by the referendum principles, to recognize that all parties need to be committed to the give and take of negotiation and be prepared to agree to reasonable compromises.

Our approach has been to be flexible and creative, to look for new solutions to old problems and to take a new approach that says we are willing to open the door to discussions about some issues that have, for one reason or another, been kept off the tables. We hope for a n d , f r a n k l y , e x p e c t t h e s a m e k i n d o f c r e a t i v e a n d flexible thinking from our partners in these negotia- tions — both Canada and the first nations with whom we are negotiating. [1445] One of the issues that we have said we are willing to explore is revenue-sharing.

In fact, members of this House will have heard reference to revenue-sharing in the throne speech. They will also see an allocation for revenue-sharing in the '03-04 budget that was tabled in the Legislature on February 18. British Columbians need to work together if we are to build a strong pro- vincial economy. We believe revenue-sharing with first nations is a way to share the wealth of the province and to create a common interest in economic develop- ment, a common interest shared by first nations and non-aboriginal British Columbians that will build a stronger economy for the benefit of all.

The issue of certainty is another issue that has been a challenge for years at treaty negotiations. We've said that it's time to take a new approach to achieving the goal of certainty. We are in this process, in large meas- ure, because it is time to achieve certainty with respect to the ownership and management of the lands and resources of British Columbia — certainty in terms of what aboriginal rights and title mean and certainty in terms of what the Crown's rights and title mean.

The best guarantee of certainty in a treaty is found in the quality of the relationship the treaty helps to establish, so we have made the decision that it's time for British Columbia to look for different legal tech- niques to achieve certainty. We do so acknowledging that it will be important to ensure that treaties clearly define the rights and responsibilities of all parties. In fact, that may be the most important building block of certainty. If we have a clear understanding of our rights and responsibilities, we can move forward to build a new relationship based on that clear under- standing.

Here is perhaps the way of expressing what's new about this approach. I believe that we can achieve the certainty we need without requiring the extinguish- ment of aboriginal rights or the use of the legal tech- nique known as cede, release or surrender. In outlining these things, I'm saying, essentially, what we're pre- pared to do to try to help reach agreement, recognizing that we are still engaged in the hard task of negotiating agreements. Time will tell, of course, if these new ap- proaches achieve the success we hope they will achieve. Let me move on to another issue: self-government.

There's been a lot of talk about self-government. In particular, how can we move forward with an ap- proach to self-government that respects the interests of all British Columbians? We have some pretty impor- tant objectives as government. These objectives are expressed in the referendum principle that the public supported in the referendum campaign last summer. Those objectives include some pretty obvious and prac- tical objectives. Government structures and relationships need to be flexible.

Whether they are first nations, municipal gov- ernments, provinces or federal governments — wher- ever you look — governments need to be financially accountable and democratically responsible. We think we can make progress on achieving these objectives with respect to self-government, and we can do it in a way that is respectful of first nations interests while ensuring that the broader public interest of the people of British Columbia is satisfied. Another issue where we've made steps towards taking a new approach is the issue of reconciliation.

That is the recognition that we have much to regret in the history of our relations with aboriginal peoples in this part of North America. In fact, our history does not

6154 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 2003 leave us much to be proud of in that relationship. It's time to acknowledge that reality, and it's time to move forward in a way that says we can work to reconcile our differences, to acknowledge the past and to see if we can build a new relationship based on mutual re- spect. I acknowledge, as with all of these objectives, that there are challenges here. It's not up to one party to a relationship to say that the relationship is working. All parties have to be convinced that the relationship is working.

We, for our part, are willing to take the steps towards building that new relationship based on mu- tual respect. I think we'll see many opportunities for government, over the months to come, to pursue this theme of reconciliation in a meaningful way. [1450] One specific initiative, which is part of the overall responsibility of the treaty negotiations office but is not necessarily simply a manifestation of the treaty nego- tiation project, is the economic measures fund. Eco- nomic development for first nations is a critically im- portant objective of government.

It should not wait on hold while we negotiate comprehensive treaties. There i s w o r k t o b e d o n e n o w a n d w o r k t h a t c a n b e d o n e now. With respect to economic development, we have committed $10 million a year over four years to estab- lish an economic measures fund that will enhance the participation of first nations in the economy of British Columbia. To date some 57 agreements are being imple- mented, with a further 54 in active negotiation. We believe we will achieve the service plan objective of ten to 15 significant agreements in the fiscal year '03-04.

The list of these agreements is long, but among the major agreements are some major forestry projects, shellfish initiatives, irrigation schemes, independent power projects, and oil and gas training programs. These offer great potential to ensure that aboriginal British Columbians have an equal opportunity to par- ticipate in the development of the economy of British Columbia. These projects will help develop the important skills and tools needed to take advantage of economic activity.

They are more broad than simply training, and I can assure the members of this House and this com- mittee that we will evaluate the results of these projects and measure our successes. But I believe that there will be successes and that we can use those successes as the platform to build further successes. The fund provides opportunities for first nations to be constructive, full participants in the economic life of British Columbia. That is the key to the new relation- ship, in my view.

Rather than seeing ourselves through tired old lenses that divide the world into us and them, it's time to determine how we can reconfigure a rela- tionship across a barrier that has existed for too long and to rebuild a relationship based on working to- gether, on seeing ourselves as partners in the joint en- terprise of building a stronger province. I think there are opportunities across the range of economic development, whether it's oil and gas or aquaculture or forestry or tourism or ski resorts. Wher- ever it is and whatever the initiative, we have a great opportunity to build a prosperous future together.

It's an opportunity not without challenges, and we are mindful of the challenges. But, frankly, I am somewhat hopeful that we are on the verge of taking some posi- tive steps forward in the months to come. I look for- ward to the opportunity to discuss these issues as members may be interested in them. Hon. G. Cheema: Mr. Chair, may I have leave to make introductions, please? Leave granted. Introductions by Members Hon. G. Cheema: I have here one very important member of the Sikh community from the lower mainland, Mr. Karm Singh, and he's accompanied by a few guests from outside the country: Mr.

Sewa Singh, Surinder Kaur, Dalip Kaur, Ranjit Kaur, Sukhjit Kaur and Varinder Singh. Mr. Singh is a very well-respected member of the community, and I would like the House to please make them very welcome. Debate Continued J. MacPhail: I've been in and out, but did the At- torney General introduce his staff? Hon. G. Plant: I'm pleased to do that. I'm joined by Philip Steenkamp, the deputy minister of the treaty negotiations office. To his right is Ingrid Fee, who is the director of the corporate services branch.

Behind me is Jim Crone, who is the assistant deputy minister of management services for the overall ministry. [1455] J. MacPhail: I will start, by agreement. We'll do the treaty negotiations first. Let me just outline part of the direction…. Well, no, this is the direction that I'm taking on treaty negotia- tions. I hope we can actually have a discussion — I will certainly try, Mr. Chair — that moves toward under- standing a positive direction on these matters. I have said on the record many times that I thought the referendum was costly and politically divisive.

However, the government went through with it, and it w a s w i d e l y t o u t e d b y t h i s c u r r e n t g o v e r n m e n t a s a way to revitalize the treaty process and get the public involved. I had an opportunity to examine the remarks of the current Attorney General in his reply to the Speech from the Throne earlier this year, where those very points were made by the Attorney General — that it was a way to revitalize the treaty process and get the public involved. M y l a t e s t a c c o u n t i n g f r o m E l e c t i o n s B .

C . o f a n e s - timate of what the referendum cost is that they're ball- parking it around $7.5 million. It's the latest estimate; the final figures are not in yet. That's how much so far,

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6155 we know, was spent to consult British Columbians and to ask the eight principles. I want to look at that in the context of what the At- torney General has been commenting on publicly around the Snuneymuxw potential agreement-in- principle. Then I also want to talk about the cutting of funding to the treaty negotiations office. Then my final point in this area will be around what actions have flowed from the expression of regret that was given in the Speech from the Throne. I want to use as a point of discussion the Snuney- muxw Nanaimo treaty table.

I know it hasn't reached the point of agreement-in-principle yet, but it is being widely reported, and the Attorney General has en- gaged — at least twice that I know of — publicly in the media on that matter. If I can, I'll just put it in context for general discus- sion.

The report coming through CBC is that the land claims settlement of the Snuneymuxw contains the following: exclusive fishing rights, revenue sharing, taxation powers in the form of property taxes, a bigger reserve — probably 20 times more land made up of some 5,000 hectares, some of which is reported to be private land — resource rights and a form of self- government. The Attorney General, in discussing this potential agreement-in-principle, as I heard it, talked about the need for flexibility in terms of solving land claims issues. I am a champion of resolving land claims and reaching treaties — a huge champion.

There is only one way of reaching a treaty, and that is for all parties to agree. I champion that. I do want to see what the pro- vincial government's role is in reaching treaties, given the referendum. The referendum set out, very explic- itly, eight principles and said to British Columbians that the ministry would abide by those principles dur- ing negotiations. Here's what people voted for — not me, but people did. Eighty-five percent of the people agreed that pri- vate property should not be expropriated for treaty settlements.

However, there are reports that the Snuneymuxw settlement includes some private lands. I'm wondering whether the Attorney General could clarify: does the concept of willing buyer, willing seller apply, or has there been a shift on the part of the prov- ince? Hon. G. Plant: I welcome the member's commit- ment to the treaty process.

She made a number of comments in the course of that last contribution to the debate, leading up to a fairly specific question. [1500] The referendum principles are hugely important to us as we move forward to achieve agreement at the tables — particularly the six breakthrough tables, but all of the tables where negotiations are taking place in British Columbia.

With respect to the first principle, we were always very clear with the public throughout the referendum campaign that the focus of the first principle was to guide government to avoid expropriating property, but that within the scope of that principle, a government would be free to negotiate the acquisition of private property on a willing seller, willing buyer basis. There are parts of British Columbia where Crown land is scarce. There are other parts of British Columbia where we believe that there will be ample Crown land to do what needs to be done to provide a mutually agreeable land base for first nations .

O ur prefere nce wil l always be to use Crown land as the land currency in the treaty process. But on the east coast of Vancouver Island — thanks to the actions of predecessors creating the railway grant and things like that — there really is very, very l i t t l e C r o w n l a n d a v a i l a b l e . S o w e h a v e l o o k e d a t t h e acquisition of private property as a tool to help us achieve agreement in Nanaimo — but only on a willing seller, willing buyer basis — and that is, in my view, completely consistent with the referendum principle. J.

MacPhail: When I was debating the Forestry Re- vitalization Act with the Minister of Forests, I raised some concerns brought forward by first nations. It is epitomized by the Carrier-Sekani position — but cer- tainly much broader than Carrier-Sekani — about a 20 percent takeback of Crown lands that was being done outside of the treaty-making process. I asked at the time, and the Minister of Forests replied: "Don't worry.

The takeback would resolve the first nations issues around obtaining Crown land that had forest values on it." I also raise the issue that: why wouldn't there be a principle to resolve first nations treaty issues, in terms of forested lands, of a concept of willing buyer, willing seller? For instance, any company holding tenure could enter into willing buyer, willing seller. The Minister of Forests said — I'm not going to ask the Attorney General to justify the Minister of Forests' comments, because he would have to take time to look them up — that this would bring greater certainty.

Well, we do know — and I'm sure the Attorney General has had time to see how this issue of proper allocation of forest land resources is not working at all — that the matter is blowing up, particularly with the Carrier- Sekani in terms of perhaps going forward with a boycott of B.C. wood products. Why was the principle of willing buyer, willing seller not pursued in that area? Hon. G.

Plant: Well, I am as interested as the mem- ber is in having a good discussion about the work of the treaty negotiations office, but as I heard her ques- tion, it was precisely a question that ought to have been directed at the minister responsible for the forest revi- talization legislation.

The issues around the approach that the government has taken with respect to the need to take back a percentage of the major licences across the province are issues that the member presumably has already had some opportunity to canvass with the Minister of Forests and may have further opportunities in the future. [1505] It is interesting that when we come again to the question of what we are doing in the treaty negotia-

6156 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 2003 tions office to attempt to reach agreement in treaty ne- gotiations in a manner that is consistent with the refer- endum principles, we're also guided by the second principle, which is that we will, generally speaking, avoid interfering with existing leases and licences, but we'll compensate fully when that interference is un- avoidable. That is certainly something we intend to continue to do as we make the decisions necessary to try to achieve treaty settlements. J.

MacPhail: Perhaps I can make the link more di- rectly for the minister as to why I'm raising this matter. I've had my discussion with the Minister of Forests, and I raise that only to let the Attorney General know. I've had my discussion, and that was done last week. But the matter takes on new import today, given the Carrier-Sekani's reported actions around wanting to institute a Home Depot boycott plan because of the sweeping forest policy changes that occurred outside of the treaty-making process and outside of any consul- tation with the Carrier-Sekani.

What I wanted to explore with the minister is that willing buyer, willing seller is a concept that is being explored at the Snuneymuxw table, where there are limited avenues available — i.e., limited Crown land. Why couldn't this approach be taken to resolve not only the issues of treaty-making but changes in forest policy that bring in first nations in an equal, fully con- sultative way to allow for a willing buyer, willing seller approach to tenure? Hon. G. Plant: I would like to be more helpful than I can be. The member's question….

I appreciate that she gave it a second shot, but as I heard her second question, it was a question that ought to have been directed to the Minister of Forests who, as she de- scribes it, has been embarking on a forest revitalization project that is — to quote her, I assume, quoting the minister — "outside the treaty process." I mean, the member has an interesting question, but it is not a question that I am going to be able to assist in answer- ing, because I'm not the minister responsible for im- plementing the forest revitalization program.

I do hope that as the minister moves forward with the forestry revitalization program, there will in fact be opportunities for the minister and government to make fibre and revenues available to first nations on a case- by-case negotiated basis in keeping with the frame- work the minister will develop. I do believe that will contribute to the general goal of economic develop- ment, which I certainly support. I'm also fully mindful of the fact that the Carrier- Sekani apparently are not going to publicly support the government's initiatives in that regard.

I must say, in all frankness to the member and to the members of the House, that as it happens, the Carrier-Sekani table in the treaty process is a particularly unproductive table. We don't seem to be able to find a way to build the ingredients of a productive treaty negotiation with the Carrier-Sekani. In a way, I must admit I'm not all that surprised that the Carrier-Sekani are expressing con- cerns about some other aspect of government policy. J.

MacPhail: It does seem to be a bit surprising for a government that wants to resolve treaties to exacerbate the difficulties at this particular table by the forest revi- talization policy. Perhaps I can just explain the link, and then we'll leave it, because the Attorney General doesn't seem to…. Well, the Attorney General can't answer the question. [1510] The Carrier-Sekani singled out Canfor Corp., charg- ing for a boycott. They're calling for Home Depot to boycott wood and paper products from Carrier- Sekani's traditional territory in B.C.'s northern interior.

They're proceeding with singling out Canfor for that boycott, charging that the wood it supplies to Home Depot is stolen from Carrier lands and that that wood will be removed from being a way to resolve their treaty. So that's how the link is.

The first nations are saying that if they had been consulted about the forest revi- talization policy, they would have said that in their traditional territories, this is a matter for the treaty- making tables, and we can certainly discuss how this provincial government can reach its goal of having a price for timber based on market through a willing seller, willing buyer concept. Yet all of that is gone now, and in fact, a difficult treaty-making table has grown even more difficult because of this govern- ment's actions in those areas.

Back to the referendum, 93 percent of people on the referendum agreed that hunting, fishing and recrea- tional opportunities on Crown land should be ensured for all British Columbians. I actually believe that the law gives first nations hunting and fishing rights, but there are reports out of the Snuneymuxw agreement that there will be exclusive fishing rights. Could the Attorney General comment? Hon. G.

Plant: Well, first of all, let me take advan- tage of the member's continuing interest in the Carrier- Sekani table to offer members a bit more information about what government has tried to do to build a con- structive relationship with the Carrier-Sekani tribal council over the past couple of years.

The member herself may recall that when she was in government in January 2001, her government gave provincial negotiators a mandate to negotiate in the interim measures agreement with the Carrier-Sekani tribal council that included the following: (1) a 100,000- cubic-metre timber allotment under a community for- est pilot agreement, (2) an attempt to seek 400,000 cubic metres of timber on a voluntary basis from licensees, (3) an attempt to negotiate a consultation protocol agreement to improve Carrier-Sekani tribal council participation and input into forest planning and man- agement — to summarize, upwards of half a million cubic metres of timber.

Further to that discussion, in April 2001, Canada, British Columbia and the Carrier-Sekani tribal council

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6157 signed a forestry bridging agreement that contained those commitments. A year later, in April 2002, the Carrier-Sekani tribal council advised British Columbia and Canada that they were not prepared to continue ne- gotiations of an IMA — that is, an interim measures agreement — on the basis of the timber volumes set out in the forestry bridging agreement. The tribal council asked that B.C. revise its mandate to provide it a direct award of half a million cubic metres of timber per year.

B.C. then reviewed its mandate and subsequently authorized provincial negotiators in October of 2002 to do just that — to table an offer of half a million cubic metres of wood per year for the term of the licences. This would have led to an overall allocation of 1.5 mil- lion cubic metres of wood.

In addition, the province committed to providing half a million dollars per year for two years for economic development related to forestry. [1515] On October 22 of last year the Carrier-Sekani tribal council wrote to the province indicating that they had rejected the provincial offer and that they were termi- nating the forestry bridging agreement.

I am informed that since then, the Ministry of Forests has been under- taking negotiations with individual bands within the tribal council and on the third of March of this year apparently made a direct award to one of those bands, the Saik'uz, of 450,000 cubic metres over three years. There are discussions for short-term volume that are continuing with other Carrier-Sekani tribal council bands. Sometimes it is easier to pay attention to the rheto- ric and harder to keep your eyes focused on the reality.

I think the reality is that the government of British Co- lumbia has worked hard over the last couple of years, both when the member was in office as government and also since the election under our leadership, to try to make a significant volume of timber and other eco- nomic opportunities related to forestry available to the Carrier-Sekani tribal council.

We will continue to work h a r d t o d o w h a t w e c a n t o e n s u r e t h a t t h e a b o r i g i n a l people who live in the communities that are part of the Carrier-Sekani tribal council do have some reasonable measure of access and opportunity to participate in the forest economy. The member asked the question about referendum principle No. 3 — that hunting, fishing and recreational opportunities on Crown land should be ensured for all British Columbians. We are working hard at each of the tables to ensure that the AIP provisions give effect to that principle.

The issue of fish carries with it some additional challenges because the fundamental consti- tutional responsibility for managing the fish resources, particularly salmon, is federal, not provincial. There are some negotiated provisions in the pro- posed Snuneymuxw AIP that relate to domestic fishing entitlements. Those are there to recognize the well- recognized rights in respect of fish for food, ceremonial and social purposes. There are also some provisions in the Snuneymuxw documents with respect to opportu- nities to participate in commercial fishing.

There is a part of the context of the Snuneymuxw negotiations which the member may be well aware of, but which may not be well known by all British Co- lumbians. In the 1850s the Crown colony entered into a series of agreements with 14 first nations, mostly in southern Vancouver Island. These are usually referred to as the Douglas treaties. The Douglas treaties contain provisions that protect the right to carry on hunting and fishing activities as formerly, and the provisions of those documents have been recognized as treaties by the court.

They enjoy constitutional recognition, and they are part of the context for the negotiation about fish issues in Nanaimo. I'm pretty sure that the Snuneymuxw position with respect to those issues — that is to say, their starting position — is that they have a largely unrestricted right to exploit all fish resources for sustenance and com- mercial purposes. The AIP goes a considerable distance towards putting boundaries on that claim.

There is no exclusive priority right to fish commercially recognized in the AIP, but I recognize that the parties have more work to do as we get to AIP — then, more importantly, as we work beyond AIP to try to get the final agree- ment to ensure that we have arrangements with respect to fishing rights that respect not only the rights of the Snuneymuxw but the important position of the recrea- tional, commercial, sport and processing sectors of the fish industry that also have a huge stake in the fish resources of British Columbia. [1520] J. MacPhail: I'm sorry. Did I miss something?

Is the Attorney General suggesting the Snuneymuxw treaty is being carved out of the old Douglas treaties? Hon. G. Plant: When the member was in govern- ment, her government agreed that the…. I'm not cer- tain of the details at the moment, whether that was a joint agreement that involved the Treaty Commission and the federal government. At any rate, the govern- ment and the Treaty Commission accepted a statement of intent from the Snuneymuxw first nation, and there have been treaty negotiations taking place with the Snuneymuxw for eight years or so.

One of the issues that has been on the table in those negotiations for a pretty long time, perhaps from the outset, has been how to achieve reconciliation, clarity and certainty around Douglas treaty rights, which the Snuneymuxw are participants in, as part of the work of seeking a modern, comprehensive agreement. J. MacPhail: Okay, but I think the Attorney General is trying to put up — I'm not sure if it's a defence or an explanation — an explanation of why exclusive fishing rights are being discussed at all at this table. There has been a change in government, and the change in government held a referendum.

The minister is quite right that the matter of exclusive fishing rights and the relationship between the Snuneymuxw and the Douglas treaties were put on the table by the former B.C. government. However, there was a referendum in

6158 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 2003 between by this government. What I'm trying to figure out is what this government learned from the referen- dum, why it did it and what it means for the people who participated in the referendum. One of the ques- tions that the Liberal government put on it said — and 93 percent of people agreed — that hunting, fishing and recreational opportunities on Crown land should be ensured for all British Columbians. I checked.

The MLAs in the area covered by the Snuneymuxw agreement didn't go out and say: "But by the way, you're excluded from this." I'm just trying to figure out what the tens of thousands of people who voted yes in the referendum are getting for that vote. In the referendum, 87 percent of people agreed that aboriginal self-government should have the characteris- tics of local government with powers delegated from Canada and British Columbia.

Again, there are only reports, but the Attorney General has commented pub- licly on this — that the Snuneymuxw deal will include a much broader form of self-government than the charac- teristics of local government. There are reports, locally anyway, that that first nations community will enjoy powers much greater than those of a local government. Hon. G. Plant: The short answer to the two-part question is that what the people of Vancouver Island and the Nanaimo area are going to get is, I hope, an agreement-in-principle.

If the agreement-in-principle is ratified on the basis that is currently being examined by the first nation, by Canada and by the province, they're going to get an AIP that gives, I think, pretty strong effect to each of the eight referendum principles. The member may wish to characterize the princi- ples as though they were ironclad guarantees, but she will search the public record in vain for any statement by the government that the referendum principles were anything but principles. They were principles; they are principles.

They are principles in the sense that they are the things we take in to the negotiating table, be- cause I believe it's better to be negotiating from a plat- form of principle than to be negotiating from a plat- form of expediency. [1525] When we are negotiating, we also recognize there is sometimes a need for some give and take. While I think it is important that we minimize that to the extent pos- sible, there will be some times and places where I will have to stand up and explain to members of the House how it was that we did not achieve an agreement that reflects any one of these eight principles in full.

Thank- fully, that is not the occasion today. That is, the AIP we are hoping to ratify with the Snuneymuxw does, in fact, maintain the principle that hunting, fishing, and recreational opportunities on Crown land should be ensured for all British Columbians, particularly in the way that the principle was consistently explained dur- ing the referendum campaign.

Similarly, I believe the provisions with respect to self-government that we are working on negotiating with the Snuneymuxw will, in fact, have the character- istics of local government and that they will include powers that are delegated from Canada and British Columbia.

In that respect, they will also be consistent with referendum principle No. 6, while also ensuring — just as we have said consistently throughout the piece — that aboriginal self-government will be real, that it will be meaningful and that it will ensure that the Snuneymuxw people have the tools they need to make the decisions they need to make in order to build a stronger community. I have been consistent about that for as long as I've been talking about this issue, a n d w e c o n t i n u e t o w o r k t o e n s u r e t h a t s e l f - government will, in fact, achieve those characteristics. J.

MacPhail: Well, the questions I'm asking are: what's different as a result of the referendum? Clearly, the Attorney General is suggesting that the referendum was only conducted on the basis of establishing some principles. It is interesting to note how much he empha- sizes that and that he is using the language of flexibility. Mr. Chair, I hope that as people listen to this, they understand I am fully committed to a treaty process that achieves aboriginal title, which is done in a way that confirms aboriginal rights and that is fair and just.

Many of these issues that I'm raising right now about the Snuneymuxw agreement-in-principle — in fact, all of them…. I'm glad the agreement-in-principle is mov- ing in that direction, but I do want to know how the achievement of this AIP meets the test of what people voted for in the referendum. Prior to this government having a referendum that cost millions of dollars and was divisive at the time, there were principles in place. There were negotiating principles in place agreed upon by all three parties: the government of Canada, the government of B.C. and first nations.

The referendum conducted by this gov- ernment tested a change in a couple of those principles, two of which I have explored. So we'll just have to see whether, indeed, the agreement-in-principle contains the direction that was in place prior to this referendum or whether the agreement-in-principle actually meets the test of the 763,480 people who voted in the referen- dum and whether there was really any point to the referendum. The Snuneymuxw will be an interesting example of what was achieved by the referendum.

I do know, hav- ing met with first nations leaders both at the band level and at the provincial organizational level, that the ref- erendum slowed down negotiations almost to a stop for the better part of a year and that the treaty referen- dum process was very divisive. On the treaty negotiations office, the Attorney Gen- eral has said that he's committed to achieving treaties. The minister has also said that he wants to fast-track treaty talks. From reading the Estimates, I understand that resources provided for negotiations are being cut by almost $3 million in this budget.

What impact will these reductions have on the treaty negotiating process? [1530] Hon. G. Plant: Thank you to the member for the question.

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6159 We inherited a stalled treaty process, and I think the last 22 months of activity has represented and consti- tutes evidence that as a government, we have done what I think needed to be done to reinvigorate this treaty process. We engaged in an important public discussion. I accept the member's challenge to ensure that as we achieve success, if we achieve success, we can measure the successes at the treaty table against the elements of the public discussion in the form of the eight referendum principles.

As we do that, I know the member will be as happy as I am to ensure that we discuss all eight principles, not just the two or three that are of particular interest to her this afternoon. I think that when they examine the eight principles as a whole — and I know people will do that — they'll see that we have actually, I think, made some real progress at treaty negotiations in relation to some particular issues where negotiations appear to have stalled. But the fact, also, is that we have not actually achieved final agreements.

Nor do we as yet have in place right now in British Columbia any formally ratified agreements-in- principle, so we have work to do. That work is being done by the treaty negotiations office. Admittedly, it's with a reduction in the budget for the negotiations side of the ministry of approximately $3 million, but I think we have in place a streamlined tool for achieving government's goals that can, in fact, do the job we need to do.

Among other things, in the course of reconfiguring the ministry or the office within the larger ministry to ensure that we can continue to do the work it has to do, we've protected all of the chief negotiator positions and the majority of our negotiator positions, because they are the people we rely on to do the work at the tables to produce the results. As we continue this work, we are still looking at different ways of doing business. There seems to be a part of this business that involves an awful lot of travel.

We're trying to look for ways to expand teleconferenc- ing or video conferencing as a tool for doing some of the business that is often done face to face. I may actually have misstated. I think I said we re- tained all the negotiators. We kept six chief negotiator positions and 21 of the 24 negotiator positions.

But it's part of this to recognize that when I talked about the breakthrough strategy — the focus on the six tables — that does involve a deliberate allocation of resources to ensure that we are putting a lot of effort into the six ta- bles and, frankly, perhaps a little bit less effort at some of the tables where, in my view, there isn't any serious prospect of significant progress in the near future. J. MacPhail: The Attorney General's ministry is reducing its treaty settlement and implementation costs to $4.7 million. By my calculation that's a $15 million cut. What's the justification for that cut?

I assumed this was the money that would actually smooth the way to settlements. [1535] Hon. G. Plant: I just want to check the numbers, but I think that's right. The reduction in treaty settle- ment and implementation costs from $20.666 million to $4.701 million is a reduction of just about $16 million. That is a reduction to McLeod Lake stumpage pay- ments of just over $15 million as a result of the fact that much of the lands identified for settlement purposes have been transferred to Canada. There is also a minor adjustment to the Nisga'a final agreement interest and amortization payment schedule.

In effect, both of those numbers are accounting entries rather than meaningful reductions in transfer payments or payments of the nature that the member implied in her question. J. MacPhail: The minister has already referred to the fact that there's been a cut in the treaty negotiations office FTEs — the staff. My calculation is that there were 124 FTEs and that there will now be 85. It's a re- duction of about a third of the staff. Can the minister — sorry, he went by this fairly quickly — explain the assignment of that staff?

A corol- lary question to this is that on the service plan, the min- istry has set out a goal of reaching 16 to 24 agreements with first nations by '05-06. What will be the assign- m e n t o f t h i s r e d u c e d s t a f f , a n d h o w w i l l t h e y b e a s - signed to reach that goal of 16 to 24 agreements? Hon. G. Plant: I'll deal with the first part of that first. In fiscal '02-03 there were 39 positions eliminated through voluntary departures, early retirements and workforce adjustment. That reduction led to a restruc- turing of the office.

It was actually, I think, obviously a difficult process for many people involved in it, but in another way it was a welcome opportunity to rethink how the TNO was organized. What happened, among other things, was that two divisions that existed within the office were merged into one. All of the administrative support positions were consolidated into one branch. In effect, there's a bit less jurisdictional box-building and a bit more shar- ing across the office of staff and staff resources. At the senior level — the deputy minister and the assistant deputy minister — there is now just one ADM; there were two.

At the senior level there's much more strategic thinking around the deployment of re- sources to achieve results. As opposed to having de- partments where people worked away within the four corners of a workplan that may or may not have been attached to the prospect of success, the office as a whole is now functioning in a more integrated way, I think, to try to focus on achieving some real successes. Resources are more flexibly available, and they are in fact deployed more flexibly and strategically. The targets that the member talked about, I think, break down into at least a couple of components.

The '03-04 target in the service plan for the number of sig- nificant treaty-related agreements is four to six. A sepa- rate target is the number of significant agreements fo- cusing on economic priorities. There the target for '03- 04 is ten to 15. The member is right that the first target increases over the next couple of years up to between six and nine. By the time we get to '05-06, we are collec-

6160 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 2003 tively expected to produce between 16 and 24 agree- ments of different kinds. I think we actually are ahead of

schedule in terms of the agreements that we have already been able to achieve for the economic measures fund. When it comes to focus- ing more closely on the treaty process, we also think we have had some successes. I'll offer this retrospectively. I know the member's question was prospective, but let me illustrate how this works retrospectively. [1540] For '02-03 the service plan target for the number of significant treaty-related agreements was three to four, and we did achieve three agreements. We achieved a land protection agreement with the Yale first nation.

We achieved a treaty-related measure agreement with the Snuneymuxw on the acquisition of two fee simple proper- ties. We also achieved success, at the least at the negotiator level, in producing the elements of the AIP that is being examined by government for ratification in Snuneymuxw. I think when we look forward in the year we're now engaged in, we will be able to meet the higher target we set for ourselves, and two years from now the still-higher target.

I think we will be able to achieve that provided, of course, that my hopes are realized with respect to the work we are doing at the break- through tables, where we are hard at work now. J. MacPhail: Do the various tables know where they fall, either fast-tracked or not? Can the minister provide examples of each? Hon. G. Plant: We don't have these things put into formal categories or boxes, partly because we do try to be flexible, and needs and opportunities sometimes change. But I did speak earlier about the idea of break- through tables, and this — I should be clear — is a term that we use.

We don't go around asking other people in Canada or the first nations if they necessarily want to be classified or called a breakthrough table. I think first nations that are in the process are just working to achieve agreements at whatever pace they can. But for our part, the six tables where we think there is a chance or — maybe better than a chance — an opportunity for early success are Snuneymuxw, Sliammon, Tsawwas- sen, Nuu-chah-nulth, Gitanyow and Lheidli-T'enneh. J. MacPhail: Well, I don't want to be cheeky, but Snuneymuxw is being counted twice, in '03-04 and '02- 03.

I thought the minister said that as one of his three achievements for '02-03, Snuneymuxw was on that. Page 25 of the service plan. I was just looking at it, because the Attorney General has made it clear to all of us who are listening that principles are just principles. But page 25 of the service plan says this: "Performance measures indicate that 100 percent of negotiated agreements are to reflect the referendum principles endorsed by British Columbians in a referendum." So does that still stand? Hon. G.

Plant: As I said earlier, I think that the proposed AIP in Nanaimo is, in fact, an agreement that reflects the referendum principles. I am very comfort- able to have this as a continuing target for me and the work that the TNO does over the course of the three years of this service plan. J. MacPhail: Again, we'll see. The service plan also states that the ministry in- tends to reduce the number of incidents involving di- rect action and blockades by first nations.

We've al- ready discussed the Carrier-Sekani situation, where there's actually a direct action of a boycott now occur- ring because of the government's forest policy. Can the minister explain how he intends to accomplish that goal? [1545] Hon. G. Plant: One of the things we do in the treaty negotiations office is work in concert with other minis- tries. We attempt to be thoughtful in our management of issues as they arise and respond to incidents that occur from time to time in a way that attempts to minimize their impact, bring them to early resolution — hopefully a successful resolution.

Broadly speaking, my hope is that by achieving some success in the treaty process, we will reduce some of the sources of friction that exist in British Columbia. In fact, if you look back over the last year, I would have to say that the inci- dence of litigation certainly hasn't gone down, but I think there's been a significant reduction in the inci- dence of direct action and blockades.

I know that the member is very concerned about the threats that she hears from the Carrier-Sekani with respect to consumer boycotts, and I must say that I don't think those threats are, frankly, terribly constructive in terms of making a positive difference in anybody's lives. But we will cer- tainly do what we c an to manage tho se issues as they arise.

We decided we would put in the service plan, as a measure of the success of the work we're doing, some reference to the incidence of litigation and the inci- dence of blockades as a sort of a test against whether or not — viewed from the perspective of the province as a whole — we're having some success in managing our relationship as government with first nations in a way that results in constructive resolution of issues as op- posed to lawsuits or blockades. There are some specific initiatives that we have underway. In fact, there are a number of them. But to give some examples, so the member can….

I'll try to make this concrete for the member's benefit. We have in place an alternate dispute resolution protocol with the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. We have worked hard to establish…. I won't say that they've been established yet, but we're in the early stages of establishing what for want of a better term I'll call a rights and title table or a forum for the Shuswap nation and also for the Treaty 8 nations. The member will see a connecting link, perhaps, among those three groups. None of those three groups are in the formal treaty process, in the B.C.

Treaty Commission process, and there are a couple of things I

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6161 could say about that. One is that one advantage of the treaty process under the BCTC is that it does create a formal framework where the parties sit down from time to time and talk about things. It at least means that everybody knows there's a phone number of someone they can call if a problem arises.

The tradition in British Columbia has been that there hasn't been the same ability to connect across divides with those first nations that are not involved in the current treaty process, so these initiatives are in- tended to try to provide a framework within which there can be some dialogue on issues. I hope that if we have that framework, it will allow us to reduce the risk that incidents will blow up over time as a result of failed communication or lack of understanding of the objectives of the different parties to issues that arise around the province. J.

MacPhail: And will there be a tally posted or a monitoring of the direction that blockading, direct- action incidents and lawsuits…? Will it be posted? Hon. G. Plant: W h e n w e r e p o r t a y e a r f r o m n o w , we'll be reporting on the extent to which we have or have not achieved success in respect of those two out- come measures. J. MacPhail: There's been an increasing emphasis, I'm told, on interim-based measures as well as the insti- tution of time-outs. We've discussed that a little bit, the time-outs.

Can the minister explain how these meas- ures are influencing the treaty negotiation process? [1550] Hon. G. Plant: Let me speak first, if I may, about the idea of time-outs. Let me provide the member with a bit of context. I think roughly a year and a half ago the B.C. Treaty Commission issued a retrospective re- port — I think it was called Looking Forward, Looking Back — that was a pretty thoughtful analysis of how the treaty process was working and how it wasn't working.

The Treaty Commission identified some sugges- tions for improvement or ideas for how either a new approach could be taken to a particular issue or, in some cases, why the parties ought to look back at the task force report from 1991 and bring back to the centre of the discussion some issues that the task force had thought should be front and centre but that perhaps had been left to the side of the road over time.

The Treaty Commission's report led to an initiative, which was supported by the First Nations Summit Task Group, by Canada and by British Columbia, to estab- lish working groups of officials that would get together and continue to explore ideas for how to improve the treaty process to see if there could be some measure of agreement on some issues that might help speed things up or achieve better results at the table. One of the issues that was identified — I'm pretty sure it was identified in the BCTC retrospective report — was the idea of table assessments.

That is, at each table the three parties to a negotiation should be frank with each other about their objectives and what they were achieving or not achieving and have a dialogue about whether things were moving along at a pace that was useful. The idea that the tables should conduct self-assessments produced sort of a second idea, which is that if the three parties, through individual negotia- tion, each agreed that in fact there was nothing produc- tive happening in the formal treaty negotiation process, they could agree to take a time-out from formal treaty negotiations.

I think it was always expected by the Treaty Com- mission that when the parties took a time-out, they would do so on the basis that they would try to commit their energy to some other project — specifically, try to find ways of exploring the issues that were the reasons behind the lack of progress and see if those issues could be resolved. The idea of time-outs, I think it's fair to say, was not well received by the First Nations Summit Task Group, really, pretty much at any point in the process.

After some discussion including a dis- cussion that attempted to see if there was something else you could call it that didn't sound quite so dra- matic, the principals — that is to say, Canada, the First Nations Summit and the province — for all intents and purposes, pretty well abandoned the idea of anything like a formal time-out. When I talk about the strategic deployment of the resources within the treaty negotiations office and the search for breakthrough tables, I'm not offering a for- mal structure within which the province has aban- doned negotiations at any table that is in the treaty process.

There are some tables in the process where the parties don't meet very often. There may be a few ta- bles where the parties don't even meet once a year. They still meet, and if that's good enough for the par- ties, then we're willing to continue to support that. Those are time-outs. I apologize, in a way, for probably a longer answer than the member perhaps expected. Let me say something about the idea of interim measures.

The first thing I want to say is that for the purpose of this discussion, I'm going to try not to get trapped up in acronyms and terminology, although for the purpose of organizing how government spends money, sometimes acronyms and terminology are es- sential. There are a variety of tools that we are using to try to build strong relationships with first nations where that is an option, to create opportunities for eco- nomic development, to accelerate the transfer of some benefits that are associated with the treaty process, and to try and create certainty. [1555] We have land protection measures.

We negotiate economic measures under the economic measures fund. There are treaty-related measures that sometimes involve land protection and sometimes involve facili- tating feasibility studies for this or that. There are a variety of different kinds of agreements that are essen- tially tools we are using, as government, to see if we can make some progress, broadly speaking, in building

6162 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 2003 better relationships without waiting until you get to final agreement in the treaty process. J. MacPhail: Thank you to the Attorney General. Recently we were informed that the city of Delta is pulling out of the lower mainland treaty advisory committee. I've heard the Attorney General comment on that.

The mayor of Delta, Lois Jackson, was actually quoted as saying that the mandate of the committee is too broad, that the city's concerns regarding the nego- tiations between the province and the Tsawwassen first nations would be better met if the city actually had a direct voice in the treaty negotiating process. Can the minister update us on what he is doing regarding the city of Delta's withdrawal and their request? Hon. G. Plant: Well, the first thing I can report to the member is that I had a meeting with Mayor Jackson and Councillor Campbell a week ago, I think, Friday.

That was a helpful meeting because it allowed the councillor and the mayor to communicate directly face to face with me about some of the reasons behind the decision Delta took to withdraw from the lower mainland treaty advisory committee. The lower mainland treaty advisory committee is a very useful group, from my perspective. It brings to- gether representatives of municipal governments around the lower mainland to try to offer input and advice to government about municipal and related issues that arise at a variety of tables — not just Delta but all of the tables in the lower mainland.

I am very grateful for the time the LMTAC people spend in pro- viding input. We use it as a place we go to consult with local governments about local government issues gen- erally and about lower mainland local government issues with respect to the treaty process. Delta, I think, was experiencing some frustration because a member of their city council was the LMTAC representative to the province's treaty team in the Tsawwassen negotiations.

What that meant was that as the LMTAC representative to the province's treaty team, they were subject to the confidentiality rules that apply to members of the province's negotiating team. That, I think, operated in a practical way as a restraint on the Delta rep's ability to go and communicate to his or her fellow city councillors about what was up, what was happening, what the issues were and what the ideas were for solving those issues.

I think it also acted as a bit of an impediment on that person's — whoever the representative would have been from time to time — ability to communicate with the people to whom they are democratically accountable as city councillors. I think it's also fair to say that Mayor Jackson does not see LMTAC as a very useful group. On that point, I think the mayor and I will respectfully have to disagree.

On the other point, the issue of how we can make sure Delta gets information about what is happening at the treaty table with Tsawwassen and how we can continue to receive input from Delta to ensure that we can identify Delta's interests in a way that allows us to try to advance them effectively at the treaty table, we are working on how we can do that perhaps through another structure. I have said publicly to the mayor, and I say it here again, that the province is committed to listening to Delta and trying to give it the information it needs to help provide input.

We'll do the best we can to ensure that an eventual agree- ment is respectful of the interests of the corporation of the city of Delta. [1600] J. MacPhail: Yes, and Delta, of course, was a mem- ber of that committee for almost ten years, so they cer- tainly speak with authority on that matter. I'm wondering whether the minister can update us on the status of negotiations with the Tsawwassen first nation. Hon. G. Plant: The short answer is: we're close, but we're not there yet. We've made good progress over the past few weeks. There was hope that there would be an agreement, an AIP, reached by the end of March.

But as we got close to that deadline, I think the parties collectively recognized that the list of issues where there was still difference was getting shorter, but the issues on the list were getting harder. We are continu- ing to work hard to address those issues. I'm optimistic but cautious that we are within, I hope, some weeks of — certainly not months away — achieving the outline of an agreement there that the negotiators can present to their principals for ratifica- tion.

But I have to say that while progress has been pretty good lately, it's hardly surprising that the last handful of issues are tough issues, and we're doing the best we can to resolve them. J. MacPhail: In this year's throne speech the gov- ernment made a number of commitments to first na- tions. One of those commitments was a three-year, $30 million economic measures fund. Where is that money coming from? Hon. G. Plant: The throne speech commitment, I think, represented a change over last year.

When the fund was announced about a year or so ago — and I have to admit I don't have, readily at hand, the date when the fund was announced…. The fund was origi- nally announced as a three-year, $30 million fund — that is, $10 million a year over three years. The throne speech commitment represented an ex- tension of the fund by one year so that it's a $40 million fund over four years. I think there's a special allocation for that in the budget. It is in vote 12 of the treaty nego- tiations office. It is the appropriation described as "eco- nomic measures," where the amount for '03-04 is $10 million.

It's $10 million a year over the four years. J. MacPhail: And the $4-odd million for implemen- tation is over and above that? Hon. G. Plant: Yes. J. MacPhail: How is this fund being administered?

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6163 Hon. G. Plant: It is not a fund where there are ap- plication forms available in government agent offices across the province. Rather, it is what we call a corpo- rate fund. There's a framework that we follow for deci- sions. We have identified some priority areas for dis- bursements under the fund — oil and gas, forestry, aquaculture, the Olympics and tourism. I think they are the five areas.

I may not have got that exactly right. [1605] What happens is that there is a deputy ministers committee relying upon the ideas that come forward from line ministry officials and from other people. It's the deputy ministers committee on natural resources and the economy. It is that committee which is charged with the responsibility of approving projects and which is responsible for the sort of strategic organiza- tion of the fund. We do the day-to-day administration, and we in my office will be responsible for leading the monitoring and evaluation of the results of these pro- jects. J.

MacPhail: Are there any restrictions being put on first nations groups who apply for funding under this program? Chief Stewart Phillip, president of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, has claimed the first nations re- ceiving funding must agree not to assert their aborigi- nal rights on the ground or in the courts while they're r e c e i v i n g f u n d i n g . I ' v e a l s o h e a r d t h a t f r o m t h e F i r s t Nations Summit as well. Hon. G. Plant: I have to say that's not a correct statement of our view.

I have to say that it is difficult for government to build a constructive relationship with a first nation that is suing you. As a

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H0409pm 05
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H0409pm 05
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	8cecfef8ccaa5a160e984e3ccd0f5d917f5a241f

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).