2004 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, MAY 10, 2004

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 25, Number 7

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Frederick Gordon Antoine

Hon. M.

Coell

Introduction and First Reading

of Bills

Vital Statistics Amendment Act, 2004

(Bill 43)

Hon. C.

Hansen

Correction Act (Bill 44)

Hon. R.

Coleman

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

New student spaces in post-secondary

education system

R. Lee

Community of Sayward

R. Visser

Adoption of children in B.C.

B. Locke

Oral Questions

Canada Health Act and surgery on

Liberal MLA

J. MacPhail

Hon. C.

Hansen

J. Kwan

Transfer of senior for long-term care

W. McMahon

Hon. C.

Hansen

B.C. Rail agreement with CN Rail and

first nations consultation

P. Nettleton

Hon. K.

Falcon

Legislation on disposition of human

remains and rights of same-sex couples

J. MacPhail

Hon. G.

Collins

Tabling Documents

Letter from E. Phillips, dated April

29, 2004

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Sustainable

Resource Management (continued)

Hon. G.

Abbott

Second Reading of Bills

Real Estate Services Act (Bill 41)

Hon. G.

Collins

Real Estate Development Marketing Act

(Bill 42)

Hon. G.

Collins

Highway (Industrial) Amendment Act,

2004 (Bill 46)

Hon. K.

Falcon

Transportation Act (Bill 47)

Hon. K.

Falcon

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Attorney

General and Ministry Responsible for Treaty Negotiations (continued)

P. Nettleton

Hon. G.

Plant

J. Kwan

R. Sultan

D. MacKay

R. Masi

Second Reading of Bills

Safe Streets Act (Bill M202) (continued)

Trespass to Property Act (Bill M203) (continued)

[ Page 10957 ]

MONDAY, MAY 10, 2004

The House

met at 2:04 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce 27 grade 5 students visiting

from Pacific Academy in my riding of Surrey-Tynehead. Joining them is their

teacher, Mrs. Debby Ryan, as well as 15 parents and volunteers who have taken

time out of their busy

schedule to accompany these students. Would the House

please make them very welcome.

[1405]

Hon. I. Chong: In the gallery today is a very distin-guished constituent of mine from Oak Bay–Gordon Head, Mr. Tom Osborne. Mr. Osborne is believed to be the youngest D-Day veteran, as he was a young man of just 15 years of age at the time of the Normandy landing. Born in 1928 in England, Tom was one of ten children. At age 15 he volunteered to serve in the merchant navy on the Admiralty rescue tug Assiduous. He was officially signed on May 15, 1944.

On D-Day, June 6, the Assiduous was assigned as a rescue tug at the American beach-heads, Omaha and Utah, as well as having rescue tug duties at the Canadian beachhead, Juno. By his sixteenth birthday, Tom Osborne had earned the France and Ger-many Star. He has also been awarded the Pacific Star.

He arrived

in Canada in 1948 where he met and married his wife, Laura, who is also in the

gallery today, and along with them is their son Dan.

Mr. Osborne

has many accomplishments which he is extremely proud of, and there are two that

I would like to note. In 1986 he was made a life member of Vancouver Naval

Veterans Association for initiating, designing, sculpting and raising money for

the Sailors Memorial at Lonsdale Quay waterfront park in North Vancouver.

In 2002,

more recently, he was awarded the Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal in recognition

for initiating the first Women Mariners Memorial to the eight Canadian women

that lost their lives during the First and Second World Wars while serving in

merchant ships. There has been no mention of these eight gallant women, so this

was quite an accomplishment.

Tom will be

attending the sixtieth anniversary of the D-Day landings on June 6 in France. I

hope today the House will make him and his wife and his son Dan very welcome.

Stewart: I'm sure many members here in the House recall that Harry Potter

was deemed to have come of age at 11 when he was sent off to live among the

wizards. In the gallery today is my son Matthew. Matthew turns 11 tomorrow, and

he's spending a couple of days here in Victoria with his father. Would the House

please make him feel welcome.

Stewart: It's my pleasure to give congratulations to a person who isn't in

the House today — a lad from Pitt Meadows. He's over in Prague, and he was

busy with his friends winning the World Hockey Championship for Canada

yesterday. I'd like to thank Brendan Morrison for his contributions in bringing

home the medal.

Tributes

FREDERICK GORDON ANTOINE

Hon. M.

Coell: It is with great sadness that I announce the passing of Grand Chief

Frederick Gordon Antoine of the Coldwater Indian band in Merritt. Grand Chief

Antoine died May 4 at 8 o'clock at the Cottage Hospice in Vancouver with his

loving wife, Janice, by his side.

He will

always be remembered for his years of dedicated work towards increasing the

quality of life of first nations. His visionary work has touched the lives of

all who knew him. Grand Chief Antoine was known for his directness, his

integrity and his love of life. He was instrumental in establishing the

indigenous-operated Nicola Valley Institute of Technology, which was founded in

1984. By 1995 it was part of the provincial college system with accredited

programs.

He leaves

his memory with his wife, Janice; his children Laura, Albert, Sara, John Paul,

Stefany and Tracey; and grandchildren Tyson, Bruce, John Albert, Kolt, Anikka,

Alana Mae, Lane and Gordon Gerald.

British

Columbia has lost a strong, courageous leader with a generous and gracious heart

who cared deeply about his people and the natural world. Grand Chief Gordon, you

took your place in our country, and you did well.

Introductions by Members

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, I have a couple of introductions today. I would like

to introduce to you a new member of the Legislative Assembly management team.

Ms. Jane Taylor, who is joining us in the gallery this afternoon, recently began

her work as our new legislative librarian. I know Jane is looking forward to

developing new and innovative library services to assist us in our work.

Previously Jane worked as the director of the Ministry of Attorney General

library. In addition to these years of experience, she brings great enthusiasm

to her new position. Would all members please make Jane very welcome.

[1410]

Also, hon.

members, I would like to introduce seven new Legislative Assembly employees

hired as the 2004 summer tour guide staff. They are starting today and work

through to the end of the Labour Day long weekend, providing tours every 20

minutes, including weekends and statutory holidays. They are post-secondary

students who will welcome tourists from around the world. In total, the tour

and Japanese. I would like you to welcome Lianna Chu, Céline Anderson, David

Nicholls,

[ Page 10958 ]

Justine Elamatha, Kimberlee Hart, Fée Lapalme-Leblanc and James Cybulski.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

VITAL STATISTICS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004

Hon. C.

Hansen presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Vital Statistics Amendment Act, 2004.

Hon. C.

Hansen: I move that Bill 43 be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. C.

Hansen: I am pleased to introduce this legislation today. Bill 43 includes

amendments that will improve the security and integrity of documents that are

related to a person's identification, specifically birth, marriage and death

certificates. Amendments will also allow a parent to apply to have a child's

surname changed at the same time as they apply to the courts for a paternity

order.

The

unfortunate reality is that our world has changed fundamentally since the tragic

events of September 11, 2001. It was in the wake of the attacks on the World

Trade Center in New York that government agencies across Canada began to look at

ways to better protect our citizens by making identity documents like birth,

marriage and death certificates more secure. The amendments we are introducing

today align with recommendations that have been made by these various bodies

across Canada.

Specific

security-focused changes we are making include requiring spouses or other

people, such as lawyers who act on someone's behalf, who want to get a copy of a

certificate to get written permission from that person named on the certificate;

permitting parents to access the birth certificate of their children only if

they are under 19 years of age or incapable; strengthening the authority of the

chief executive officer of the Vital Statistics Agency to cancel certificates

that are invalid or were obtained through fraud; and increasing the fines from

the current $2,000 to up to $50,000 for infractions relating to these

certificates.

We are also

making an amendment in response to a 2003 decision of the Supreme Court of

Canada which found aspects of this act to be discriminatory. These changes will

clarify that fathers can apply to have a child's surname changed at the same

time as they apply for a paternity order. In other words, once the courts

recognize paternity, the court in its discretion may order that the name of the

child be changed on that child's birth certificate.

I move that

the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Bill 43

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

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

CORRECTION ACT

Hon.

R. Coleman presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Correction Act.

Hon. R.

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

Motion

approved.

Hon. R.

Coleman: I am pleased to introduce Bill 44, the Correction Act. The

legislation under consideration today will create a new, modern Correction Act

and enhance public policy. The Correction Act replaces the old statute and

consolidates and modernizes existing provisions.

Three main

objectives are achieved in this new act. Public safety is enhanced through new

or strengthened legislation for the supervision and control of offenders,

protection of staff and inmates is improved through new security provisions for

correctional centres, and accountability of officials authorized to discharge

the powers and duties of this legislation will safeguard the rights and freedoms

of individuals.

[1415]

Today the

corrections branch is responsible for the safe custody and control of over 2,000

inmates and the supervision of almost 20,000 offenders in the community.

Corrections staff do a tough and remarkable job every day. I am pleased that

this act will improve their safety and the safety of others in our correctional

centres while protecting everyone's rights and freedoms.

Mr.

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

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 44

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

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

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) NEW STUDENT SPACES IN

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION SYSTEM

R. Lee: I

was very pleased to attend, with my colleagues, an announcement at the British

Columbia Institute of Technology in Burnaby this morning, where the Premier

committed to bringing in 1,145 new seats to BCIT.

Many of my

constituents are alumni, current or future students of BCIT, a polytechnic

institute with over 48,000 full-time and part-time students. The addition of

1,145 new seats will provide more educational opportunities in applied and

natural sciences, business

[ Page 10959 ]

and media, computing and electronics, engineering technology, health sciences

and trades.

As a parent

to three children, I can attest to the importance of the availability of more

seats in the post-secondary institutions. This is not only highly in demand from

the students but also driven by our recovering economy as well as the increasing

shortage of skilled tradespersons.

Mr.

Speaker, this government has made education a priority and has demonstrated this

through its commitments to add 25,000 seats to the post-secondary system by

2010. The BCIT seats are just part of that strategy. Other details include 8,000

additional seats in the Fraser region, including a new SFU campus in Surrey and

a new Kwantlen University College Trades and Technology Centre in Cloverdale.

A new UBC

Okanagan and a new Okanagan College will add 5,500 new spaces in the Okanagan

Valley. The University College of the Cariboo will become a special purpose

university and will assume responsibility for the Open University and Open

College, with 800 new seats for the south Cariboo region. The five

post-secondary institutions on Vancouver Island will add 4,000 new spaces, and

700 new seats will be added to the College of the Rockies and Selkirk College in

the Kootenays.

This is

excellent news for the students. I am looking forward to seeing even more

announcements in the months to come.

COMMUNITY OF SAYWARD

Visser: One of Vancouver Island's most beautiful communities is Sayward.

It's just north of Campbell River, at the confluence of the White and Salmon

rivers. It sits as a gateway to the spectacular Johnstone Strait. It's a great

setting. Nestled amongst the mountains, it's flat and fertile and has been the

home of forestry, fishing and agriculture for more than a century.

The folks

there are hardy. They're resilient, but they're visionary. They have to be. The

community has had to reinvent itself time and time again, and five years ago was

when the latest round of change was thrust upon them, when their largest

employer moved away. Since that day, everyone there has been hard at work

exploring new opportunities and seizing them when they arise. Here's what

they've accomplished.

They have

taken control of the local dock from Transport Canada and built a new Community

Futures office there in the old warehouse, and they have plans to attract new

commercial and recreational boaters. They've been awarded an infrastructure

grant to extend the sewers to that dock and open up a new

section of town for

residential development. These properties will have some of the most spectacular

waterfront views anywhere.

There are

new businesses developing in the dryland sort, both in forestry and in tourism.

They have a new gas station and store. They have signed a management agreement

with the Ministry of Forests to take control of the local Forestry campsites.

They have taken responsibility for the world's largest cypress tree, Sergeant

RandAlly. They have management agreements with the Ministry of Forests to

conduct tours and maintain the trails and interpretive signs. They are extending

that vision, because they also have the second- and third-largest cypress trees

anywhere in the world, and they think they have the largest hemlock in the

world.

They have

the dream of becoming the Valley of the Magnificent Trees. They've initiated the

Kusam Klimb on June 19 of this year. It's a 22-kilometre endurance race from sea

level to 5,000 feet and back, up and overtop of Mount Kusam. It's going to be a

great day and a great race.

[1420]

Here are

the results. They sold 17 houses in 2003, and in 2004 it was 41. This is a great

town that has taken charge of its future, and all of British Columbia should be

very proud of them.

ADOPTION OF CHILDREN IN B.C.

Locke: This past Sunday was Mother's Day. I know it was a wonderful

opportunity for everyone to remember their mom. I have a great mom that I

cherish very much, and I always try to let her know what she means to me.

Family is

important to all of us. As you know all too well, Mr. Speaker, we have seen many

babies born to MLAs and staff in this building. Children are an extraordinary

gift in our lives. They help us put our life in perspective — a reminder of

why we do what we do and a reminder of what is important.

I, too, am

a mom. My husband and I were blessed with two incredible daughters. My children

were not born to me; both my daughters were adopted. They are the centre of my

universe. They challenge me — sometimes too often, especially in the teenage

years. They make me laugh. They make me a better person. My daughters are woven

into my life. I feel each of their pains and all of their happiness.

Adopting a

child is a very special life journey. For me, it made me think about who I was

and how I saw the world. I know that sounds very esoteric, but the

responsibility of raising children is a serious one. Of course, a lot of those

idealistic goals go out the window when the real world of children and family

comes in the door. In the end, it's all about family and love. I am grateful

every day for the gift my girls give me.

There are

about 1,000 children in B.C. waiting to be part of a family. It's an incredible

opportunity for them but an even greater gift to the parents, who will get to

know the real joy that children bring into our lives.

This

weekend at the Burnaby Village Museum there will be a celebration of B.C.'s

adoptive families. This will be a chance to see the happiness that comes from

creating a chosen family.

I would

just like to remind all members of the Legislature of the beauty and joy that

come from being a parent. It doesn't matter how the families are created. What

is vital is the love and passion you feel for each

[ Page 10960 ]

other. Adoption has brought me two of the greatest gifts of my life, and for

that, I will be forever grateful.

Mr.

Speaker: That concludes members' statements.

Oral Questions

CANADA HEALTH ACT AND

SURGERY ON LIBERAL MLA

MacPhail: The Minister of Health blames the federal government for not

defining "medically necessary." That's what he said last December when

he caved in to the Premier's opposition to Bill 92 — the Medicare Protection

Amendment Act, 2003 — and he said the same again last week.

The member

for Chilliwack-Kent has described the agony he endured before his surgery. There

was a blood circulation problem worsening in his leg. He believed he needed

immediate surgery. Any further delay put his recovery at risk. His doctor was

also concerned enough that he gave advice to seek immediate treatment. Everyone

in this House wishes the member for Chilliwack-Kent a speedy and full recovery.

It may be

difficult to provide

definitions in the general, but in the specific it is often

easier. The Minister of Health knows the patient. He's talked to him about his

condition. Does the Minister of Health Services consider the surgery performed

upon the member for Chilliwack-Kent medically necessary?

Hon. C.

Hansen: As the member knows very well from her experience as a health

minister in government, it is not the ministers of health that answer those

kinds of questions. It is doctors and physicians.

Mr.

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

MacPhail: Exactly. This minister would say that the

interpretation of the

Canada Health Act has been called difficult, but over the years provincial

governments have paid billions of dollars for what they interpret as medically

necessary. In fact, a federal minister's

interpretation letter of 1985 on the

Canada Health Act — "medically necessary" — makes clear that it's

the provinces, not the federal government, who decide what medical necessity is.

Here's what that

interpretation letter says: "Provinces, along with medical

professionals, have the prerogative and responsibility for interpreting what

physician services are medically necessary."

[1425]

The member

for Chilliwack-Kent's doctor thought the surgery was medically necessary,

because he registered him on a list at a public facility for that surgery.

Perhaps the best test of whether the province felt this surgery was necessary

medically is to know whether the Medical Services Plan paid for it.

Will the

minister please assure British Columbians who suffer from a ruptured disk, who

need surgery, that he has not delisted this procedure? Will he confirm that the

Medical Services Plan paid for the surgery performed on the member from

Chilliwack?

Hon. C.

Hansen: While the member knows I'm not at liberty to discuss personal

medical histories of people in the medical system in this province, I can tell

the member that the member for Chilliwack-Kent was one of over 6,000 individuals

in this province who had surgeries cancelled because of a very unfortunate and

totally unnecessary strike by the Hospital Employees Union in this province. The

determination as to whether a procedure is considered to be urgent or emergency

or elective is a decision that is made by doctors.

Mr.

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

MacPhail: There is nothing confidential about answering whether a surgery on

an individual is paid by the Medical Services Plan. The minister knows that, and

he deliberately avoided answering the question.

The Canada

Health Act ensures that medically necessary services are provided to everyone

regardless of their financial situation. That's the principle of universality.

The member from Chilliwack paid an expensive facility fee.

Here's

another federal minister's

interpretation letter of the Canada Health Act, 1995,

and I quote from it: "Facility fees are objectionable because they impede

access to medically necessary services. Moreover, when clinics which receive

public funds for medically necessary services are also charged facility fees,

people who can afford the fees are being directly subsidized by all other

Canadians. This subsidization of two-tier health care is unacceptable." In

plain language…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order. Okay. Order, please.

MacPhail: …some have described that as queue-jumping, special access for

some based on their financial status.

Will the

Minister of Health admit that in this case, a violation of the Canada Health Act

has taken place because the Medical Services Plan paid for the surgery?

Hon. C.

Hansen: One of the great difficulties with the Canada Health Act is that it

is now actually just past its twentieth anniversary on April 1 of this year. In

all those 20 years there has been virtually nothing in terms of jurisprudence or

interpretation around the act.

The letter

that the member referred to is a letter from the Minister of Health at the time,

Diane Marleau, which I have read in its totality, and it is virtually the only

piece of

interpretation around the Canada Health Act that exists. We have also

in very recent months got an indication from the federal government that they

are in fact willing to look at what the

interpretation

[ Page 10961 ]

should be to the Canada Health Act. We don't know exactly where that's going

to go, but I am sure it will be part of the discussions that first ministers

will be holding in August.

J. Kwan:

Perhaps we've caught the minister on a bad day, for he cannot remember his

earlier briefings. Here's what he said in the House a year ago in estimates:

"The Canada Health Act dictates that a medically necessary procedure…must

be funded publicly. Regardless of whether that surgery is performed in a

privately owned clinic, whether it's performed…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

J. Kwan:

…in a privately owned doctor's office or whether it's performed in a

publicly owned hospital, that surgical procedure must be covered by the public

purse, and there can be no additional charges directly to the patient."

Those were the words of the Minister of Health. Will the minister now admit, in

light of his own words, that the province of British Columbia is in violation of

the Canada Health Act?

Hon. C.

Hansen: The process that we have is one that is complaint-driven. From time

to time we do get letters from patients who feel that there may have been

violations of the Canada Health Act. If anybody in this province feels that they

have been provided with services that may be in violation of the Canada Health

Act, they are free to write to the Ministry of Health Services, and it will be

investigated to the full extent possible.

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has

another question.

[1430]

J. Kwan:

The Minister of Health Services knows full well the details of the situation,

and he knows full well whether or not British Columbia is in violation of the

Canada Health Act.

Here's what

the

interpretation letter of 1995 says. Where facility fees are charged for

medically necessary services in clinics which receive funding for those services

under a provincial health insurance plan, they violate the user-charge provision

of the act. That's

section 19. That

section of the act states that in order that

a province may qualify for a full cash contribution from the federal government,

user charges must not be permitted.

Will the

minister admit that the Canada Health Act has been violated and that a penalty

is forthcoming from the federal government, or is there a secret

federal-provincial Liberal agreement to take apart public health care in this

country?

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please, hon. members. The Minister of Health

Services has the floor.

Hon. C.

Hansen: As I indicated earlier, the alleged violations of the Canada Health

Act…. It is a complaint-driven process. Patients have the right to write to

the ministry. If a patient raises an issue, we will in fact investigate it.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please, hon. members.

TRANSFER OF SENIOR

FOR LONG-TERM CARE

McMahon: My question….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. The member for Columbia

River–Revelstoke has the floor. Let's hear the question.

McMahon: My question is to the Minister of Health Services. Mr. Casey

Phillips, a senior citizen in Golden, was transferred last week to a care

facility in Burnaby. Last Thursday the NDP attempted to make a political issue

out of Mr. Phillips's transfer and his situation, arguing that he should be able

to receive medical care in Golden. I say: shame on the NDP.

To the

minister: can he explain why Mr. Phillips transferred from Golden to a care

facility in Burnaby?

Hon. C.

Hansen: When I learned some of the facts about this case after question

period last Thursday, I was quite perturbed with the approach that the NDP had

taken on this particular issue.

Mr. Casey

Phillips was indeed transferred to a care facility in the lower mainland, and it

was done so with the concurrence and the advice of Mr. Casey Phillips's family.

In fact, I will quote from a letter from Mr. Elton Phillips, who is the son of

Casey Phillips. It says….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please, on both sides of the House. Let's hear the answer.

Hon. C.

Hansen: Just to quote from Elton Phillips's letter: "The local home

care people associated with interior health also have dad's best interests at

heart." He

[ Page 10962 ]

goes on to say that he feels that these health care decisions are a matter

for family with input from interior health, and he closes by saying: "I

support interior health in their efforts."

I think it

is indeed unfortunate when the NDP will use a senior's situation — the

transfer of a senior which was done with the support of the family — and use

that as a way to drag an individual senior's case into the media in a way that

brings disrepute to the health system in this province when, in fact, it should

bring disrepute to the NDP members in this House and the NDP members in Golden.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

B.C. RAIL AGREEMENT WITH CN RAIL

AND FIRST NATIONS CONSULTATION

Nettleton: The Minister of Transportation has stated that he is glad to be

on record backing his predecessor's handling of the B.C. Rail file.

[1435]

Prince

George Citizen editor Dave Paulson has often tried to make sense of the

government's rationale in the sale of B.C. Rail. In his column of August 20,

2003, Paulson criticized the ministry's first attempts at providing information

in the first of the government's biweekly updates. "Much ado about very

little and needing a little more meat on the bone," said Paulson. Nothing

much has changed. He also referenced one of the government's promises that the

proponents must demonstrate how stakeholder groups such as employees,

communities and first nations would benefit from the proposal, with Chief Harry

Pierre of the CSTC stating that the Liberals failed to get first nations views

on the issue.

Mr.

Speaker: Time for the question, hon. member.

Nettleton: Again, nothing much has changed. My question is to the Minister

of Transportation. For the record, would the minister concede that he and his

ministry have failed to provide adequate information on the deal to the media

and have from the outset blocked first nations involvement?

Hon. K.

Falcon: I'm pleased to address that question. Actually, one of the things we

did do and made sure we did was that out of the $1 billion of proceeds we will

see out of this transaction, we ensured that those 25 first nations that have

had a historical relationship of some sort with the railway had an opportunity

to benefit from the first nations benefits trust — a $15 million fund that

they will have exclusively available for them to decide what to do.

In terms of

the north, we know about the $135 million northern development initiative that

will come out of those proceeds — controlled by northerners to allow

northerners to make economic decisions that can benefit and further their

opportunity to compete. We know about the $17.2 million for the Prince Rupert

port, which will open up the possibility of containerization and unleash all the

potential out of that wonderful part of the northwest of this province.

Really, at

the end of the day, I think what we recognize is that all of the enormous

benefits that will flow will flow directly back into, particularly, the

communities up and down that corridor, and that will be a great benefit to folks

right up and down the north of this province.

LEGISLATION ON DISPOSITION

OF HUMAN REMAINS AND

RIGHTS OF SAME-SEX COUPLES

MacPhail: Earlier this session the government introduced and passed Bill 3,

legislation that took away the rights of same-sex couples to have authority over

the remains of their loved ones. The Minister of Finance told the public that

the government would fix the bill to accommodate the public's concern.

To the

Solicitor General: it's been almost two months. How long do we have to wait for

this government to restore rights to same-sex couples that it tried to take

away?

Hon. G.

Collins: It did not take those rights away. It put those rights in

regulation through a definition. Government said we would fix that legislation.

We will fix that legislation.

MacPhail: Where is it?

Mr.

Speaker: Please.

Hon. G.

Collins: We don't respond to the calls, the whips, of the member opposite.

We said the legislation would come before the House. It will come before the

House, and members will have the opportunity to respond to it.

[End of

question period.]

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. On both sides of the House, let's have order.

Tabling Documents

Hon. C.

Hansen: I would like to table a letter, which I referred to in question

period, dated April 29, 2004, from Mr. Elton Phillips.

Leave

granted.

[ Page 10963 ]

Orders of the Day

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. Let us hear the orders of the day.

Hon. G.

Collins: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's hard to be heard over the cackle of

the member opposite, but I'll try.

I call

Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we'll be concluding the

estimates of the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management.

[1440]

Committee of Supply

The House

in Committee of Supply B; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:41 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

SUSTAINABLE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

(continued)

Vote 35:

ministry operations, $68,415,000 (continued) .

Hon. G.

Abbott: There's just one item that I wanted to conclude on here. The member

for Richmond Centre had asked last day what role the board would have in

resolving a number of the assessment issues that are currently being discussed

within the ministry. I am pleased to advise that the incoming chair of the B.C.

Assessment board, Olga Ilich…. I had an opportunity to meet with her recently.

She'll be working along with the leadership in the B.C. assessment authority to

try to provide some very good advice to government with respect to how we can

move forward on some of the more important issues, such as strata ownership and

taxation, bed-and-breakfasts, and other related assessment issues.

Vote 35

approved.

Vote 36:

Agricultural Land Commission, $1,957,000 — approved.

Vote 45:

Environmental Assessment Office, $2,897,000 — approved.

Hon. G.

Abbott: I move the committee rise, report completion of estimates and ask

leave for the committee to sit again.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 2:44 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee

of Supply B, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. G.

Collins: I call second reading of Bill 41.

[1445]

Second Reading of Bills

REAL ESTATE SERVICES ACT

Hon. G.

Collins: I move the bill now be read a second time.

The new

Real Estate Services Act deals with the licensing and conduct of real estate

professionals who buy, sell and manage properties on behalf of others. The

fundamental purpose of the licensing requirement is to protect the public and

thereby preserve public confidence in the real estate sector. The new act

furthers this purpose by enhancing public protection, while at the same time

reducing the regulatory burden on real estate licensees.

The Real

Estate Services Act will maintain and enhance consumer confidence, for example,

by requiring that persons who manage the affairs and finances of strata

corporations — strata managers — obtain a real estate licence. The act also

establishes a new real estate special compensation fund with increased

compensation levels to protect consumers who have suffered loss caused by the

theft or fraud of licensees.

addition, the new act will increase public confidence by enabling more

responsive and effective regulation of the industry. Under the act, the Real

Estate Council of British Columbia has been re-created as a self-regulating

organization directly responsible for the licensing, education and discipline of

all real estate licensees. The Real Estate Council will be equipped with a broad

range of new investigative and enforcement tools, including the ability to

freeze funds and impose monetary penalties. New procedural rules will ensure

that licensees are treated fairly.

The new

Real Estate Services Act will also benefit licensees by enabling them to more

effectively provide real estate services. As well, the act recognizes the

independent contractor status of many licensees and allows for the development

of regulations to permit licensees to carry on business through a personal

services corporation.

The new act

will reduce the regulatory burden imposed by government on licensees by

investing the Real Estate Council with rule-making power over licensing

requirements, continuing professional education, real estate business standards

and the conduct of licensees. This will give the council the flexibility needed

to respond to changing market conditions and to adopt rules appropriate to the

type of business carried on by a licensee.

Mr.

Speaker, government has undertaken extensive consultations with the real estate

industry and the public during the development of this legislation. The new Real

Estate Services Act, together with the new Real

[ Page 10964 ]

Estate Development Marketing Act, which deals with the marketing of new

developments, will provide British Columbia with a modern and effective

regulatory framework and will help ensure the continuation of public confidence

in this important sector of the provincial economy.

I move

second reading.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Collins: I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 41,

Real Estate Services Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the

Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G.

Collins: I call second reading of Bill 42.

REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT

MARKETING ACT

Hon. G.

Collins: The Real Estate Development Marketing Act, which deals with the

marketing of new real estate developments, will reduce costs and the regulatory

burden on developers. It will also enhance consumer confidence in the real

estate sector by providing greater protection for purchasers of real estate.

The new

Real Estate Development Marketing Act will provide developers with greater

certainty by consolidating requirements currently found in legislation,

regulations and policies of the superintendent of real estate. Developers will

be able to market property at an earlier stage in the development process,

prospectuses will be eliminated, and developers will be allowed to file simpler

disclosure statements in all cases, regardless of the nature of the development

property. Developers will also be able to use purchasers' deposit moneys to

construct the development, if those moneys are appropriately insured.

In order to

protect purchasers, disclosure statements will continue to require full and

plain disclosure of material facts. A purchaser who does not receive disclosure

will have the right to rescind their purchase agreement with the developer at

any time. Purchasers receiving disclosure will have a standardized seven-day

period in which to rescind their purchase agreements, regardless of the type and

location of their property.

With regard

to deposit moneys, the new act requires developers to place purchasers' deposits

with regulated professionals who are familiar with trust responsibilities. Only

if the moneys are insured can they be released to the developer for the

developer's use in marketing or constructing the development.

Finally,

the new act provides the superintendent of real estate with more effective

administrative powers to enforce compliance with the act, including the ability

to take action against a developer who fails to provide meaningful disclosure to

purchasers.

This new

Real Estate Development Marketing Act balances the developer's need for

flexibility with appropriate consumer protection and will create a framework for

smarter regulation of the real estate development sector in British Columbia.

The new act, together with the new Real Estate Services Act, is a result of the

first comprehensive review of British Columbia's real estate legislation in

nearly 50 years. Extensive consultations have been undertaken to ensure that the

new real estate legislation is effective, responsive and up to date.

I move

second reading.

[1450]

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Collins: I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 42,

Real Estate Development Marketing Act, read a second time and referred to a

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

after today.

Hon. G.

Collins: I call second reading of Bill 46.

HIGHWAY (INDUSTRIAL)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004

Hon. K.

Falcon: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

The Highway

(Industrial) Act currently regulates industrial roads in British Columbia. While

many of these regulations are essential for safety, they have not been updated

in nearly 50 years. Over the past several months my ministry has discussed

regulatory changes with the companies that use industrial roads. We decided it

was time to modernize the act, and that's exactly what we are doing here today.

The Highway

(Industrial) Act is being renamed the Industrial Roads Act. It provides a

framework to ensure the safety of industrial roads and the drivers, vehicles,

equipment and traffic that operate on them. This bill streamlines the Highway

(Industrial) Act and continues with our new-era commitment to reduce the red

tape and regulatory burden in the province by one-third in our first three

years.

The

benefits of this bill are many. It streamlines the approval process for

companies that wish to use industrial roads. It eliminates regulatory

duplication by exempting roads that are regulated separately by the Ministry of

Forests and the Ministry of Energy and Mines, and it resolves problems in the

existing legislation by removing outdated regulatory requirements.

This

government made a clear new-era commitment to cut red tape and eliminate

inefficiencies. The government has already eliminated over 90,000 out-

[ Page 10965 ]

dated and redundant regulations, and we're already starting to hear and see

the results across the province. We are number one in job creation. We are

number one in small and medium-sized business confidence levels. More people are

moving to B.C. for the first time than we've seen in years — positive net

migration for the first time in six years. Our credit rating with both Moody's

and Standard and Poor's has been improving.

This

legislation continues to move B.C. forward. It benefits our vitally important

resource industries such as forestry, mining and oil and gas. It makes it easier

for those industries to acquire applications and utilize resource roads. It

allows business to do business. It allows us to bring out the best in British

Columbia, and that is good news for all British Columbians.

Motion

approved.

Hon. K.

Falcon: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House

to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill

46, Highway (Industrial) Amendment Act, 2004, read a second time and referred to

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

House after today.

Hon. G.

Plant: I call second reading of Bill 47.

TRANSPORTATION ACT

Hon. K.

Falcon: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

The

Ministry of Transportation currently has four separate statutes dealing with

highway legislation: the Highway Act, the Ministry of Transportation and

Highways Act, the Highway Scenic Improvement Act and the Build BC Act. There is

no need for such a legislative mess. It is time to organize our core highway

legislation in one place. As I've mentioned earlier, our government had a pretty

clear new-era commitment that we would reduce the red tape and regulatory burden

to eliminate inefficiencies. We are well on target to achieve our one-third

reduction.

In keeping

with this new-era commitment, I present Bill 47, the Transportation Act. The

Transportation Act consolidates key highway legislation into one organized,

plain-language document that replaces four other ministry statutes. It results

in a net reduction of regulatory requirements, and it corrects previous problems

by using updated language, ensuring consistency and organizing the legislation

in an easily accessible way.

[1455]

top of that, the Transportation Act implements a number of changes including

clarifying the definition of a highway. The old legislation defines a highway

simply as "a public way." The new definition requires that a public

highway must be established as a highway according to specified methods. This

provides government and the public with greater clarity and certainty around

what a highway is in British Columbia.

The

new act also clarifies highway responsibilities between provincial and local

governments and harmonizes provincial highways legislation with the Community

Charter. In many places the old legislation does not distinguish between

municipal and rural highways. Provincial and local government responsibilities

are often duplicated and overlap one another. The new act sets out that the

Minister of Transportation is responsible for improvements, structures and

public works relating to provincial highways, and it reinforces that municipal

highways are a local government responsibility under the Community Charter.

This new

act facilitates long-term highway and corridor planning between local

governments and the province to help balance urban development with future

traffic requirements. It fosters mutual planning between the ministry and local

government around provincially controlled access highways. It is intended to

promote development throughout the province. The new act also provides local

government with a way to reduce the number of ministry zoning bylaw approvals as

long as mutual corridor management planning takes place.

This new

act is going to improve business processes for the ministry. We will no longer

have to search through four separate statutes to find the highway legislation

we're looking for. It's going to improve relationships with local government and

enhance public service. By eliminating unnecessary regulation, the act is going

to cut a significant amount of red tape in the spirit of achieving our new-era

commitment.

Motion

approved.

Hon. K.

Falcon: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House

to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 47,

Transportation Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole

House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G.

Plant: I call Committee of Supply, and for the information of members, we

will be debating the estimates of the Attorney General and Minister Responsible

for Treaty Negotiations.

Committee of Supply

The House

in Committee of Supply B; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:59 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

ATTORNEY GENERAL AND MINISTRY

RESPONSIBLE FOR TREATY NEGOTIATIONS

(continued)

On vote 11:

ministry operations, $370,749,000 (continued) .

[ Page 10966 ]

Nettleton: I would like to refer the minister to a press release of the

Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs dated April 22, 2004. I'm just going to reference

the main thrust of their concern, as I understand it, with respect to what

government is doing in and around their announcements with respect to B.C. Rail.

I would ask the minister to respond, if I may.

[1500]

In this

release there's reference made to the government's approach to the B.C. Rail

deal. It is their view that government is engaged in what they term a risk

management approach. "This approach is premised," their press release

reads, "on the continuing denial that aboriginal title and rights exist,

while offering accommodation or benefits agreements to lessen their legal

liability in the event that first nations prove aboriginal title and rights and

that the government is found to have infringed on those rights."

The UBCIC

commissioned a legal review of the B.C. Rail deal. One of its findings is that

government will use proof of economic benefit to argue that the damage suffered

by indigenous peoples was mitigated or lessened, that indigenous peoples

participated in and benefited from their decision to privatize B.C. Rail — and

also possibly to show consultation.

In the

event that any indigenous communities who were part of the trust chose to

challenge the transfer from B.C. Rail to Canadian National Railway in the

future, government would likely argue that it met this test in part by seeking

workable accommodations as evidenced by the creation of the trust. I know the

minister has made it very clear in this House on a number of occasions, as have

other ministers of the Crown with respect to the trust, that, in fact, that is

not the case. Again, I would ask him to respond to this news release.

They go on

in the release to state that the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs categorically

rejects the notion that the B.C. Rail benefits trust comes with no strings

attached. That's what Chief Phillip of the UBCIC states:

"To

date, the language of the provincial assurances state that the government does

not believe aboriginal title or rights are involved in the transfer, because

it's a transfer of existing rights rather than the creation of new ones.

Therefore, consultation or accommodation is not required. The UBCIC is

absolutely convinced that the existence of the trust will be used by

government at some point as a workable accommodation in the event of a legal

challenge."

The

minister, I'm sure, can and will respond to the thrust of their concerns here,

and I'll be very interested in his response.

Hon. G.

Plant: I'm not going to be in a position to respond directly to a press

release from the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs that the member quoted from,

because I don't have the press release in front of me. I'm not certain whether

the remarks that the member has quoted from are reflective of the tenor of the

press release.

Nonetheless,

let me attempt to answer what I think underlies the member's question by

referring the member to some parts of the estimates debate that have already

taken place on this subject. At one point in the estimates debate, I referred to

a letter that my ministry sent in late March to the chief of the T'it'q'et band.

It repeats some statements that we have made, I think, consistently and

unambiguously since the initiative was first announced publicly late last year.

On February

17, I wrote to the 25 first nations who are the potential beneficiaries or

participants in the trust the following, among other things: "The B.C. Rail

partnership agreement with CN Rail does not transfer any title to lands, and the

creation of the $15 million trust does not involve aboriginal rights and title

and related consultation and accommodation. Participation in the $15 million

trust will not have any conditions related to assertions of rights and

title."

[1505]

I think

that statement is straightforward and unambiguous. I understand that the Union

of B.C. Indian Chiefs has a different view with respect to whether or not the

B.C. Rail partnership agreement triggers any obligations to consult or

accommodate in respect of aboriginal rights and title, but that's where that'll

have to rest. There is a disagreement. However, it's hard to know why there

could be any disagreement on the trust, because we have been as clear as it's

possible to be, from the day the trust was first announced, that there are no

strings attached to the $15 million B.C. Rail benefits trust.

Nettleton: That's all very well. The minister has failed, however, to answer

my question. I'll restate the question. I should also say that I'm happy to

share the press release with the minister if the minister so wishes, so that he

can get some sense as to the content and the context of my remarks with respect

to this release.

My question

is to the minister. Proof of economic benefit — is that something that the

minister may instruct government lawyers to argue at some future point with

respect to a claim against the government in terms of the government's

involvement with B.C. Rail, and in turn argue that the damages have been

mitigated or lessened?

Hon. G.

Plant: No strings means no strings. We're not going to wave around the

benefits trust as evidence that first nations in some way gave up their rights

or that we did something to accommodate constitutional rights or title. It is as

clear as clear can be. It doesn't really matter how many times you ask the

question or how many times one attempts to craft a different question. The

suggestion that this initiative is in some way intended to negatively affect

aboriginal rights or title is a suggestion that exists only in the minds of

those who somehow can't bring themselves to support the idea. It is not a

suggestion that finds one iota of support in anything that has been said by or

on behalf of government in relation to the B.C. Rail first nations benefits

trust.

Nettleton: I think it's important to put on record that in fact we will hold

the minister to this — his as-

[ Page 10967 ]

surances today with respect to the concerns of first nations. I certainly

will do my part, and I expect first nations, again, will hold this minister to

account with respect to his assurances in and around the trust fund and B.C.

Rail.

J. Kwan:

I just want to follow up a little bit more on this issue. For the minister's

information, here are the areas in which I would like to canvass for the rest of

estimates with the minister. I have a few more questions around the trust issue

and then some budget questions around the TNO office. Then I would like to move

to the issue around the representation agreement questions, then to the Frank

Paul inquiry and then to pay equity. If there is still sufficient time, we may

touch on some of the issues around legal aid funding, particularly relating to

the refugee claimant issue. That's just for the minister's information in terms

of preparing his staff.

I would

like to follow up, though, on one question that I did ask the minister, on which

he committed to providing information to the opposition. That would the bands

who have signed on to the trust — who they are — as well as the question of

who has not signed on and who has since deleted the names from the trust. I want

to be clear in terms of my request for that information from the minister, and

that is to receive the names of the bands as well as the people who signed on,

who didn't sign on, who deleted the names afterwards, and the timing of when

those actions took place — just to be clear.

[1510]

To follow

up on the line of questioning I had put forward prior to today — I guess last

week — in addition to the member for Prince George–Omineca…. As mentioned,

the UBCIC actually have been opposed to the sale of B.C. Rail. In fact, they did

commission a legal opinion on the matter. In spite of what the minister has said

— that the creation of the trust has no strings attached for the aboriginal

community and its members in terms of supporting the B.C. Rail deal…. There is

an interesting question that's been raised by this legal opinion, to which I

would like the minister's response. Let me just put parts of the legal opinion

on the record.

starting point for this analysis is the question: what legal gains does the

province hope to achieve by creating the trust and having indigenous

communities agree to be listed in its creation legislation? Two possible

benefits to the province as a result of the trust creation are discussed here:

(1) mitigation of legal liabilities that may accrue as a result of the

BCR–CNR privatization deal regarding aboriginal title and rights; and

(2) response to possible consideration of the federal competition bureau assessing

Crown fulfilment of fiduciary obligations regarding aboriginal title, rights

or reserve interests."

The

document goes on to say, regarding aboriginal title and rights impacts:

"Provincial

assertion that the sale of operating interests in B.C. Rail to CNR will not

impact aboriginal title, rights or reserve interests. The province has taken

the position that the transfer of B.C. Rail operations to CNR, through a

partnership which will maintain underlying ownership of interests in the

railbed with the province but lease these interests and transfer operations of

the rail line to CNR, will have no impact on aboriginal title or rights or

other interests."

Then

it goes on to quote where the government's position is reflected in its actual

statements. I'll just skip over that. The document then goes on to say:

"These

letters reflect a political position — that there is no need to consult

about the transfer of existing interests — rather than a legal reality. As a

matter of policy, the province maintains that aboriginal title or rights do

not exist unless proven in court or acknowledged through treaty and so denies

that their actions will impact on those rights. Additionally, the provincial

consultation policy states that there is no need to consult about renewals of

existing tenures or permits. The province argues that there is no need to

consult about the BCR–CNR transfer because there is no new interest being

created, merely the continuation of an existing use."

The

document goes on to say:

"This

position has been questioned in Haida nation v. Weyerhaeuser, in which the

Haida nation challenged the transfer and renewal of an existing tree farm

licence. In that case, the BCCA held that there was an enforceable

consultation duty on transfers or renewals of existing interests if they might

impact upon aboriginal title or rights.

"The

provincial risk management approach involves denying that aboriginal title and

rights exist while offering accommodation or benefits agreements which they

hope will lessen or mitigate the legal liability in the event that indigenous

peoples prove aboriginal title or rights in the future and the government is

found to have infringed those rights. The province is developing a centralized

database to track all moneys paid to indigenous peoples so that this

information can be readily accessible in the future, should the province need

to show that it accommodated the cultural and economic interests of indigenous

peoples. Government will use proof of economic benefit to argue that the

damage suffered by indigenous peoples was mitigated or lessened — that

indigenous peoples participated in and benefited from their decision to

privatize B.C. Rail — and also, possibly, to show consultation.

"In

the event that any indigenous communities who were part of the trust choose to

challenge the transfer from B.C. Rail to CNR in the future, government would

likely argue that it met this test in part by seeking workable accommodations,

as evidenced by the creation of the trust. Provincial assurances that the

trust does not equal consultation reflect the position that aboriginal title

and rights are not impacted by the agreement, because they are a transfer of

existing interests rather than the creation of new ones, and so consultation

or accommodation is not required. Nonetheless, the existence of the trust will

be used by the province in the event of a legal challenge.

"There

is no provincial assertion that they will not seek to introduce or rely upon

the creation of the trust to evidence accommodation in the future. The

language of the assurances given merely highlights that they do not believe

aboriginal title or rights issues are involved in the transfer."

[1515]

Let me just

stop there. There is more I would like to quote and put on the record and put

questions to the minister on, but let me just stop there on this question. The

minister says there are no strings attached to the

[ Page 10968 ]

trust. It does not mean that the aboriginal communities support the sale of

B.C. Rail or the B.C. Rail deal. There is a question that's being raised now

about whether or not, if a legal challenge should surface, the government would

use the trust as evidence of accommodation of the aboriginal community. I'd like

the minister's response to that, please, Mr. Chair.

Hon. G.

Plant: Let be me be clear. I am not going to comment on a legal opinion

letter read selectively by the member. She can continue to read it, but I'm not

going to comment on it, because among other things, this is not a forum for

debate about legal opinions. This is a forum where we are debating the budgetary

estimates of the Ministry of Attorney General on the treaty negotiations office.

The member

concluded her remarks with a question, and the question was another version of

the question that I have been asked and have answered many times. It's actually

harder to put it any more clearly than this. There are no strings attached.

There are no strings attached to the $15 million today. There will be no strings

attached tomorrow and no strings attached next week or any week thereafter.

If it turns

out that the government's position on the obligation to consult and accommodate

is not the correct position but, rather, there is some argument that a

constitutional obligation arises on the face of the B.C. Rail investment

partnership, then of course the question will arise: what steps has government

taken to avoid infringing aboriginal rights and title? We will not be

introducing a reliance upon or relying upon the $15 million first nations

benefits trust fund in that context or any other context having to do with the

question of whether or not the government owes aboriginal rights and obligations

or fiduciary obligations in respect to the B.C. Rail investment partnership.

I don't

know, again, how much more clearly I could put the answer. The question is a

product of a fertile legal imagination. It has no foundation in substance, in my

respectful submission.

J. Kwan:

The minister tried to address the legal opinion questions I put to the minister

by saying that the legal opinion has no legal substance. The aboriginal

community takes a different point of view. I might remind the minister that the

aboriginal community, I suspect, will take the matter to the courts and

therefore really have a situation where certainty is further undermined in terms

of addressing aboriginal land and title rights and in terms of addressing, from

a business economic point of view, the question of certainty in terms of

economic investment and economic climate for British Columbia. I think that the

government's actions to date, which will potentially lead to further court

action, do not serve British Columbians well.

The

minister would like to assert somehow that I've read selectively on the record

the legal opinion. Let me tell you, Mr. Chair, I have read substantively the

legal opinion onto the record as it has been written in the document itself.

It's not a fabrication from the opposition side in terms of what the legal

opinion consists of.

The

pertinent question that I put to the minister is this — about whether or not

the assistance of the trust will be used by the province in the event of a legal

challenge and whether or not the provincial government will assert that the

introduction or creation of the trust is evidence that they have put forward to

accommodate the aboriginal community in the future. The language of the

assurances given merely highlights…. So far what the government has said is

that aboriginal title rights issues are not involved in the transfer. That's all

that they have said.

[1520]

Now, how

will one interpret the minister's words about no strings attached? Does that

mean to say that if a legal challenge should surface in the future about the

B.C. Rail deal, the government would not utilize the trust in any way, shape or

form to defend the government's position? Let me just stop there. I would like

the minister's answer to my question.

Hon. G.

Plant: The existence of the fund will not be used as an answer to or a

defence for any claims brought by first nations in respect of the B.C. Rail

investment partnership — period.

J. Kwan:

Let me just conclude, then, with the legal opinion in terms of their

position on this matter.

"In

summary, government is likely creating the trust as part of its risk

management approach to consultation with indigenous peoples. If indigenous

peoples challenge the ultimate decision to transfer or sell operations of B.C.

Rail to CNR, government will argue that they have accommodated the indigenous

peoples through the creation of the trust. Where indigenous communities

participated as beneficiaries of the trust, government will also likely use

this information.

"The

purposes of the trust include economic development, cultural purposes and

educational opportunities, areas which the courts have suggested might meet

government's obligation to accommodate indigenous people's cultural and

economic interests in aboriginal title lands in decision-making.

"While

little is known about the deliberations of the competition bureau, it is

possible that they will take into account evidence of the province's

'accommodation' of indigenous people's rights in rendering their decision, and

the push by the province to have this legislation concluded quickly may be in

response to that."

Those are the concluding remarks from the legal opinion.

The

minister just said and put on record that he and the government will not be

utilizing the trust to defend or to claim that the government tried to

accommodate aboriginal rights and title on the issue around B.C. Rail. Well,

let's just wait and see, then, in terms of where that is at.

It might be

of interest for the minister to actually write a response, an official response,

to the legal opinion that I have put parts of onto the record. I would be happy

to table this document to the minister, and I would seek whether or not the

minister would actually

[ Page 10969 ]

respond in writing to this legal opinion. I would be happy to table it if the

minister doesn't already have a copy.

Hon. G.

Plant: Mr. Chair, you will be interested to know that the position I've

expressed on the floor of the Legislature has been stated clearly, repeatedly

and unambiguously in a number of pieces of correspondence dating back to about

December 8 or 9. Nothing I have said today is in any way different from that

which we have said consistently, and so I'm getting to the point where I'm

feeling that I think the government has actually made its position pretty clear.

I have also

made it clear now on the record for people who read Hansard , so we can

look at the print that Hansard will appear in and consider that my answer

in writing to the member's questions and to all other questions that have been

asked about the B.C. Rail benefits trust and what government's purposes are in

relation to it. That, I hope, represents an answer to the questions that have

been asked about our intentions in respect of the $15 million B.C. Rail benefits

trust.

The

Chair: Just a reminder, member. This line of questioning has been well

canvassed. You might want to think about moving on to another line of

questioning.

J. Kwan:

Let me just conclude, then, with these statements. The reality is that the

legal opinion was obtained on April 15, 2004, well after what the minister says

he has written and put on the public record about his position about the trust

and the government's position about the trust. In spite of that, the legal

opinion came forward with these concerns that have been identified.

[1525]

I think

there is validity in the questions that have been put from the aboriginal

community's point of view — absolutely, especially given the historical

experiences of the aboriginal community. Can you blame them that they have

doubts about the government's intentions and where they want to go, given their

experiences to date? I would say I wouldn't blame them — absolutely not. There

is a long road to go with respect to trust and relationship-building. I think it

is incumbent on this minister to actually respond in writing to the legal

opinion that has been commissioned by the UBCIC with respect to this and to

answer the issues directly raised in the legal opinion.

Now, I'll

leave that up to the minister to decide whether or not he thinks that he has

answered the questions adequately. I will simply put this on record, and I will

remind the minister that the legal opinion was put forward and obtained on April

15, 2004 — after the government's various letters that the minister says have

addressed the issues. At the appropriate time I will table a copy of this piece

of legal opinion for the minister's information. I would put on record to ask

the minister to respond directly to the UBCIC with respect to the issues raised

in this legal opinion, and I will leave it up to the minister to decide whether

or not he will do that.

I would

also want to put on record that it is not just the UBCIC who raised the issues

around this front. The Seton Lake Indian band has also raised issues around this

front. In fact, there is a coalition that has raised the issues — the Title

and Rights Alliance — around the sale of B.C. Rail deal, for example. There

are huge concerns from the aboriginal community on this file and on the

government's handling of the B.C. Rail deal. I should also add that the First

Nations Summit has been on record to say that the trust…. This is, again, in

spite of the minister's assurances about the letters that have been forwarded to

the aboriginal community. The First Nations Summit has also been on record to

say to the government that they felt they've been led down the garden path by

the government on this issue. The Attorney General can protest all he wants, but

the fact remains that there is considerable mistrust from the aboriginal

community side on the intentions and the actions of this government.

I would now

like to move on, though, to the issues around the service plan relating to the

ministry's funding. According to last year's service plan, in '03-04 to '05-06

the ministry changed the way core businesses are organized. In the '02-03 to

'04-05 service plan, the core business areas represented the joint efforts of

two or more branches working together. Now the core business areas are listed

individually for each ministry branch.

Have the

ministry branches also been restructured, or is this just simply an accounting

change?

Hon. G.

Plant: First of all, just to go back to the last issue, the member made

something about the timing of my communications being prior to this opinion

letter that she has been quoting from. I have actually also expressed myself

pretty clearly in writing since April 15 in op-ed pieces that I think were

published in at least the Vancouver Province and also one of the Prince

George newspapers. So subsequent to the opinion letter, I think I have been

pretty clear and on the record on these things, including over the last week or

so when we have intermittently had the opportunity to debate the estimates of

the treaty negotiations office. I think that's an important part of the

clarification.

[1530]

The other

thing that I think is important to add before we move to the new topic is that

while the author of the opinion letter makes certain contentions about how

government will act, the author of the letter does not support those contentions

by reference to any evidence — that is, any evidence in relation to our

statements concerning the intended purpose of the B.C. Rail benefits trust. They

represent hypothetical or speculative arguments. I've certainly spent quite a

bit of time having to deal with them, and I'll continue to do that if I have to.

But I think I am also going to continue to be as clear as I can that not only is

there no basis for the concern that's been expressed, but no basis

[ Page 10970 ]

has been suggested. I mean, there is no evidence to support the contention

that's been made by those who are apprehensive about this trust. They are

thinking up problems, and that's fine. People can do that, but we have tried to

be as clear as we can from the word "go" that the B.C. Rail benefits

trust initiative is exactly what it intends and purports to be — nothing more

and nothing less. In fact, I think that's what I said in one of those op-ed

pieces.

Now on to

ministry organization. One thing that's changed, last year over this, is that

the treaty negotiations office has been asked to file, and has filed, a

stand-alone service plan. That is a new development. Last year to this, there

has not been any significant reorganization within the treaty negotiations

office. There is always a bit of minor moving around, but the basic organization

at the treaty negotiations office is the same this year as it was last year.

J. Kwan:

The 2003-04 budget estimate shows a reduction in ministry FTEs from 3,514 in

'02-03 to 3,464 for '03-04 — 50 FTE positions fewer. In estimates debate last

year the minister said that ministry staffing levels were reduced as a result of

voluntary departures, early retirements and workforce adjustments. He went on to

explain that two divisions were merged into one and that all of the

administrative support positions were consolidated into one branch.

This year's

estimates, however, show that the target number of FTEs set out in last year's

budget has not yet been met, and instead of 3,464 the restated figure for the

'03-04 year is 3,486. Could the minister advise? The 18 FTEs that differ between

a two-year…. What happened to those 18 FTEs? Where is it slated to be cut, and

why was the target not met?

Hon. G.

Plant: I need to ask for a bit of clarification from the member. We had been

debating the treaty negotiations office, and the total staffing in that office

is 88 FTEs. When the member uses the number in the 3,000 range, I think she's

talking about the FTE count for the total Ministry of Attorney General and

treaty negotiations office, and that's fine.

For the

purpose of organizing the staff I have with me here now…. I have TNO staff,

and I'd be happy to answer those questions when we get to AG estimates. If the

member wants to get to AG estimates now and nobody has any more TNO questions,

I'm happy to do that too.

J. Kwan:

Yes, the numbers that I put actually incorporate the TNO office as well as the

broader ministry. I only have a few questions around that area, so I thought I'd

try…. But no, that's fine. I'll save the questions, in terms of the broader

ministry, for later.

Let me

specifically focus on the TNO budget, then. The treaty negotiations office

budget has been cut this year by $6 million between the '03-04 and '04-05 budget

year. Half of the $6 million for this year is under the negotiations

section of

the budget.

The First

Nations Summit has actually put forward its concerns with respect to the budget

cuts to the TNO office. Let me put the First Nations Summit's letter to the

minister, to the Minister of Finance as well as to the Premier on record. It

reads:

[1535]

"Reduced

budget for the treaty negotiations office.

"We

are writing to express our concern about the 37 percent decrease in funding

over the next two years for the treaty negotiations office. This budget

cutback will reduce the provincial, human and financial resources availability

at treaty tables and will undoubtedly slow a number of negotiations.

"In

our view, one party to negotiations should not be able to reduce their funding

levels in the midst of negotiations without at least consulting the other

parties, nor should one party be able to divert funds away from a negotiation

table for other purposes — i.e., promoting advancement of certain tables at

the expense of others. All treaty negotiation tables are equally important and

should be given the opportunity to move forward.

"The

budget cut to the treaty negotiations office is just another example of this

government's lack of commitment to resolve treaties. Your government has

stated that its priority is to expand efforts to achieve reconciliation with

first nations, but that is not reflected in the '04-05 budget or the '05-06

budget plan for the treaty negotiations office.

"Your

government's strong desire to allow access to resources that are currently

encumbered by aboriginal title cannot be dealt with in isolation. This

government needs to take a comprehensive approach to good-faith negotiations

to finalize treaties. Rather than negotiating comprehensive agreements, this

government is focused on short-term, take-it-or-leave-it economic measures,

providing little opportunity for negotiation and no long-term economic

stability for first nations communities.

"Despite

these cuts, first nations remain committed to good-faith negotiations with the

provincial and federal governments. We urge your government to reverse the

cuts and restore funding to at least prebudget levels and commit to good-faith

negotiations with first nations and Canada.

"We

wish to meet with you as soon as possible to discuss this serious matter. We

look forward to an early response from you."

It's signed from the First Nations Summit task force. This letter was dated

April 20, 2004, so it's a rather recent letter.

On the

question around the budget cuts, the First Nations Summit has expressed its

views clearly to the minister. Also, I would like to know: from the $6 million

cut under the negotiations sections of the budget, what aspects of the

negotiations will be affected by this cut?

Hon. G.

Plant: Let me begin a subject that the member raises by referring to the $6

million reduction in the treaty negotiations office budget from '03-04 to

'04-05. This is also an answer to the concerns expressed by the First Nations

Summit, which — and I'm not blaming them or being critical of them for this

— reflect an incomplete understanding of the way in which the operating budget

for the ministry of the treaty negotiations office is spent.

[ Page 10971 ]

There is a

reduction of $6 million, and $2.95 million — that is half of that —

represents a reduction in the originally anticipated budget for economic

measures. As the member knows because she canvassed the subject earlier in

estimates, we had, a year ago, planned for the possibility that the economic

measures fund would have a $10 million allocation this year. But in fact, it has

only a $7 million allocation.

The $6

million reduction that we're talking about and its impact on our ability to

maintain a negotiating presence at the tables immediately has to be reduced by

half, because the $3 million that represented economic measures funding has no

impact on our negotiating presence at the negotiating tables. That leaves $3.05

million in the negotiations budget. Of that, $1.645 million represents a funding

commitment associated with something called the Clayoquot Sound interim measures

agreement. My ministry's contribution to supporting that agreement will be

expiring, and so of the $3 million balance that we reached after we got rid of

the first $3 million, $1.645 million represents one item that again has nothing

to do with supporting a negotiating presence at the negotiating tables.

[1540]

That still

leaves a little bit less than $1.5 million to explain. Of that, $1.2 million of

savings will be achieved by reducing travel and using better business practices

with respect to travel and other aspects of the way we do business. So of the $6

million reduction, only $194,000 is represented by a reduction in salaries in

the treaty negotiations office. The FTE count for the ministry in '03-04 was 88,

and it will be 88 in '04-05, so there is no change in the base allocation of

FTEs in the ministry.

We continue

to maintain a presence at all negotiating tables. We have very deliberately been

strategic in the allocation of resources as a matter of priority, because I

believe the most important priority for the treaty process in the current fiscal

year is to determine whether or not we can actually achieve final agreements. We

are devoting an enormous amount of our effort and energy at achieving final

agreements. We are, however, continuing to staff negotiations at other tables.

We are doing that, I may say, also in a way that is strategic.

If I may at

this point, Mr. Chair, offer a comment, which I don't intend as a criticism. It

is a comment that has to do with the way the First Nations Summit tend to

express themselves in relation to these matters. There are two different ways

that you can look at the treaty process; there are more than two. One is to take

a high-level approach and attempt to generalize across the province and, in

effect, create the implication that everything is happening everywhere at the

same time according to the same pace towards the same conclusion. That's sort of

the top-down approach. It's an approach that's easy to adopt because it doesn't

require as much work in understanding the details of what's actually happening.

The second

approach is maybe the bottom-up approach. That is to look at the landscape of

all of the tables, all of the places where we're negotiating, and ask the

question on a table-by-table basis: where is this table at — not just what

stage of the six stages of the BCTC process is the table at but, if they're at

stage 3 and they've been there for six months or six years, what is happening?

What is the rate of progress? What is the likelihood that this is a table that

is going to move from stage 3 to stage 4 within the next short while? When you

conduct that assessment on a table-by-table basis across the province — which,

unfortunately, the letter from the summit doesn't do — you get quite a

different picture of what is actually happening.

There you

get to see, for example, that while the Squamish first nation and the government

we haven't made much progress in negotiations at the Squamish table for a very

long time. I hope the Squamish would not disagree with me when I suggest that

that is, as much as anything, a sort of mutually shared agreement that the

Squamish first nation has other priorities, and we as a province have worked

hard to try to deal with those other priorities. There's not much point in

scheduling 15 meetings a month at the Squamish treaty table when there isn't

that much work to do and when we are simply not engaging on a whole host of

issues. We're not even past stage 2 — or maybe into stage 3, but we still

haven't got the framework agreement. We've been at stage 3 with a few tables for

years.

Then we're

at stage 4, which is the agreement-in-principle stage, with a number of first

nations around the province. Again, if you look at that landscape, even if you

just take out that group of people from the overall landscape, you'll find

different tables with different visions, different timetables, different rates

of progress, different expectations about how fast or how slow they want to go.

I don't want to hide from this. You will find there are some tables where the

first nations negotiators are saying they'd like the province or the federal

government to move a little faster. Actually, there may be some tables where I

wish we could move a little faster, where I wish the first nation would move a

little faster.

[1545]

Some of

that frustration, I think, is endemic and inherent in the process, but I do

think it needs to be put on record that we are maintaining a presence at all

tables. We are making progress at the tables where progress is possible, and we

are certainly making progress at the final agreement tables.

J. Kwan:

The issue I would like to take with the minister's comment is this. As we know,

treaty negotiations do take a long time. Oftentimes with some groups it is

perhaps more challenging than that of others; there are more issues to resolve

than that of others. As we know and as history has shown us, a lot of times the

work is about building onto what has been done to move it in the direction of

final agreement or the final stages of negotiations. Where you have a situation

where funding is reduced, those tables…. As the first

[ Page 10972 ]

nations said, "promoting advancement of certain tables at the expense of

others" is what is at issue, what they raise in terms of budget reductions.

In fact, I

should just remind the House, Mr. Chair, that the budget cuts that I've talked

about in this '03-04, '04-05 budget year is in addition to budget cuts that took

place in the '02-03 budget years. I should say the budget was originally $51.1

million in '02-03, and then in '05-06 it is $21.8 million. That is a total of

$29.3 million worth of cuts over a number of years. That's significant in terms

of the budget reduction in this regard.

The

minister also says — and it is interesting — that $1.2 million of reduction

is in the area of travel and better business practices. I would have assumed,

though, that the government staff who are engaged in the negotiations process

would have already been engaged in better business practices in terms of treaty

negotiations. Expenses — i.e., for travel — would be incurred where it is

necessary. I am not quite sure what the minister means when he says better

business practices and reduction in travel. Reduction in travel would only mean

that no travelling is taking place to facilitate discussions. Maybe I'm wrong in

understanding that. Maybe the minister could clarify.

Hon. G.

Plant: First of all, you just can't slip back into some other number and

pretend that number expresses what is implied by it. The $51 million, whatever

that number was…. There was a year a couple of years ago — and I don't have

those numbers in front of me — where something like $15 million or $20 million

of the budget of the treaty negotiations office was a flow-through for the

McLeod Lake Indian band adhesion agreement, and there was a big whacking chunk

of money that was there for the Nisga'a final agreement. That's why you have to

get down below the one-line number and find out exactly what's happening. Let me

just be clear about the implications of the answer to the last question.

We started

out with $6 million — big number — in reduction, but what we came up with

was $194,000 in actual salary reductions. In other words, taking a big-picture

perspective, there was virtually no reduction at all — the same number of FTEs

last year over this year. We have not had a cut in negotiating funding in this

ministry in respect of the last year over this year. Certainly over the course

of the three years of the service plan, we have had some reductions. I have to

say, Mr. Chair, that that is a three-year stage of progress. I know the member

won't like to hear this, but that is actually three years where we have turned

the treaty process around in British Columbia, where we have actually achieved

significant successes to the point that we're in four final agreement

negotiations at one time, which is unprecedented. That's not bombast; that is a

simple numerical fact. There has been no time in this process where there have

been four final agreement negotiations progressing, as is the case today.

[1550]

You can

start with any big number you want, but the fact is that year over year there is

really no reduction in the support, in the negotiating activities across the

ministry as a whole. The member or the First Nations Summit uses the word

"cuts" because it is the only word in their vocabulary. They use it

even when there is an increase in expenditure. They use the word

"cuts." It's like they can't get through a minute without a sentence

that has the word "cuts" in it. I know I'm going to provoke the member

into some long exposition of all the major cuts that have taken place, but she

won't find them in the budget of the treaty negotiations office last year over

this year when we're talking about the issue that got her started, which is our

support to negotiation funding, because we do have all the resources for

negotiation that we had last year.

Let me be

clear about something. I spent a fair bit of time in April travelling around the

province, meeting with first nations — some that are in final agreement

negotiations. We had a good discussion about what kind of progress we were

making, what the stumbling blocks are going to be. I also met with some first

nations that are at the AIP stage, stage 4, and took a bit of a measure of the

landscape there, because we are looking for further opportunities. There's no

doubt about it. I want success stories out of this process because I believe

that success will breed success. If we get final agreements at those four

tables, I think all kinds of things are possible. At that point we may have a

hard time keeping up.

At the

moment if we don't get final agreements, then I think the process is going to be

subject to a whole host of additional questions and scrutiny about why we're

doing it in the first place. It doesn't matter if you have a dozen AIPs, if you

can't get to final agreement sooner or later. I think that's a pretty sensible

way to prioritize the allocation of scarce public resources.

The member

had a question about better business practices. In fact, this may come as a

surprise to the member, but it is always possible to improve business practices.

Sometimes it is possible to improve them because software is developed that's

new and that allows you to do better project management.

One of the

things we've done in the course of the last year or so is tried to encourage

first nations to move towards a consideration and, in some cases, even a

negotiation of some of these issues on a regional basis. Instead of having to

divide up in the three or four or ten or 12 or 25 different communities, there

are times and places where we actually think we can do as much work as we need

to by doing it at the regional level. Yes, there are times and places where I

think there is a natural tendency to think the only way you can do the deal is

to get on the airplane, but in fact you can probably make progress if you simply

set up a teleconference.

There is

always, I think, an opportunity to figure out how you can spend money more

effectively and more efficiently as you learn from what you are doing. You learn

about how your existing practices are helping you get either more efficient or

less efficient. Those are all, I think, opportunities for learning.

[ Page 10973 ]

What we

come down to at its base, in terms of the disagreement that exists between the

summit and the province, is that we have taken the same negotiation resources

and organized them more strategically so we are ensuring that we have all the

resources we need to staff for final agreement tables. That means that at a

small handful of AIP tables, we have a dialogue with the first nations at those

tables about whether or not we are able to move forward as quickly as they would

like.

I will tell

you this. If we wanted to, I bet we could go down the list of those AIP tables

and I could identify issues, questions and challenges that are not necessarily

the sorts of issues, questions and challenges where we would find an answer just

like that by putting another negotiator on the file or having another meeting a

month, because there are more difficult issues. There are issues oftentimes

around what the vision is that the first nation has for what it wants at the

table and how to bridge the gap between that vision and our vision of what is

possible. Those issues oftentimes, frankly, just require a little bit of

thinking as well as a bit of negotiation.

I don't

think that in fact we are in any way inhibited in our ability to achieve what

are fundamentally the shared goals of Canada, British Columbia and, I hope, the

summit, which is that we should get to final agreements.

[1555]

J. Kwan:

Let me just put this on the record. The minister says: "Well, gee, over

the last number of years the budget hasn't really been impacted in the treaty

negotiations office." You know what? It just so happens that in the last

four years, the treaty negotiations office's budget has been reduced by some 57

percent — it just so happens over the last four years.

The

minister says: "Don't worry, though. Everything is fine." The minister

likes to say that the opposition uses the word "cut" irrespective of

what reality is. Well, let me just tell the minister this. What this government

likes to claim is not a cut, and they like to re-term it into things like

reassignment, redirection, and I think I heard the minister just say

reorganize…. You know what? You can name it whatever you want to name it.

People know the difference.

This

government is very apt, I might say, at inventing new words for the term

"budget reductions" or for the word "cut," in terms of

budget cuts. They will call it anything else but that, but British Columbians

know the difference, and the First Nations Summit certainly knows the

difference.

I should

also add this. It's an important issue that the First Nations Summit has already

raised, and I would like to put this on the record again.

"The

government's strong desire to allow access to resources that are currently

encumbered by aboriginal title cannot be dealt with in isolation. The

government needs to take a comprehensive approach to good-faith negotiations

to finalize treaties. Rather than negotiating comprehensive agreements, this

government is focusing on short-term, take-it-or-leave-it economic measures,

providing little opportunity for negotiation and no long-term economic

stability for first nations communities."

The

strategic moves that this government has put forward…. There's another spin to

it in terms of how the aboriginal community sees it, and I think the minister

needs to take that issue and reflect on that.

As we know,

in terms of treaty negotiations, it is not easy. It is not easy to get to final

agreement — not by any stretch of the imagination. It is not easy for the

first nations community to get to the table either, for resources for them on

the other side are also scarce. There is nobody that I think wants resolution on

the treaty negotiation issues more than the aboriginal community themselves.

They absolutely want resolutions. Why? Because they want a future for their

community. That's what the process has been about. It is about the aboriginal

community having a future for themselves.

The

minister can claim whatever he wants to claim, but I would ask the minister to

take seriously the words of the First Nations Summit and the concerns they have

raised. I would ask the minister to sit down to meet with the First Nations

Summit about the budget reduction issues they have raised.

The

minister says he means no offence to the First Nations Summit when he tries to

say they don't understand what really is going on. Well, you know what? The

table could be flipped to the other side as well. Maybe it is also the problem

that this minister doesn't understand the issues which the First Nations Summit

is trying to put to the table and trying to get resolution for — these

long-outstanding issues of treaty negotiations.

Hon. G.

Plant: The numbers actually, when you examine them, speak for themselves.

The question is, though: are you willing to actually allow the numbers to speak

for themselves?

Let me give

an example. In '02-03 there were treaty settlement and implementation costs of

$20.666 million. That was a component of the number the member was using when

she was talking about cuts. In fact, those had nothing to do with negotiation

staffing. They were costs for things like the McLeod Lake Indian band adhesion

agreement implementation or for the Nisga'a final agreement. Those numbers were

reduced in '03-04 to $4.7 million. That is a significant reduction, but it has

nothing to do with our ability to staff negotiations. It has everything to do

with the timing and sequence of obligations to fund certain agreements entered

into by the government.

[1600]

This is not

a matter of spin or rhetoric or message box; it's the reality. I don't know why

we can't, in this province, ever seem to have a discussion based on the way

things actually are. It seems to be the inevitable product of some disease in

our provincial psyche that we can't debate about things as they are. The

opposition has to pretend things as they might be and then use that as the basis

for an argument.

[ Page 10974 ]

There is

definitely a challenge in maintaining an adequate negotiation presence in this

process. There is no doubt about that. But you need to examine that challenge

against the issues that, to her credit, the member did include in her last

intervention — talking about making sure that we are responding to actual

ability to make progress. That is a real challenge. You don't even have to get

political before you acknowledge that that's a real challenge.

The member

says that it would be a good thing if I sat down and met with the First Nations

Summit. I can't imagine that our government could meet any more often with the

First Nations Summit. We have had quarterly meetings with the First Nations

Summit Task Group since we were elected. We are the first government in the

history of British Columbia to have a cabinet meeting with members of cabinet

and the representative chiefs of the first nations of British Columbia in the

same room. We are the first government in the history of the province to sit

down and have a first citizens forum, where we as members of government and

other community groups could sit down in a room with representatives of

aboriginal groups — not just chiefs, but people who are responsible for

on-the-ground, front-line service delivery — and talk about the issues that

are at stake in aboriginal communities.

The deputy

ministers meet regularly with the summit chiefs. There are bilateral meetings

with ministries between summit chiefs and the ministries of government. We meet

a lot with the summit. I go to summit meetings probably once or twice a year —

to the full chiefs meeting of the summit — to give a progress report, to

answer questions and to take back concerns, and I'll continue to do that as long

as I think that's a useful process.

Yes, we do

want to listen to what the summit has to say. But I will say this. I think the

summit needs to pay attention to what's actually happening. There is a tendency

on the part of the First Nations Summit Task Group to globalize and to

generalize, but the reality in this process is now very, very specific. It's

very targeted. It's table by table: "What do you want? What can we do? How

can we get there?"

There are

groups that come together; there are groups that break apart. When first nations

groups come together and they break apart, it's hard to make progress in the

treaty process with them. That's got nothing to do with whether there are 88

FTEs or 92 FTEs. The First Nations Summit talks about — I don't know what the

exact language is — short-term agreements. Let me remind the member again:

this is the first time in the history of the treaty process in British Columbia

that we are at comprehensive final agreement negotiations at four tables.

If the

people in Snuneymuxw, the Snuneymuxw first nation, decide that they want to

support the deal that their negotiators initialled, which is a decision they can

make at any time, we'll be at final agreement negotiations at that table. I

haven't thought to ask my staff about this lately, but if the people of Sechelt

ever decide that they want to get back at the table to negotiate with respect to

the AIP that they endorsed, we'd be at that table negotiating comprehensive

final agreements.

And we have

done more than that. This last government that we had paid a lot of lip service.

We actually came to the table with $26.3 million in economic funding that is

really…. It's got nothing to do with aboriginal rights and title. It's simply

government trying to make a difference to help the aboriginal communities of

British Columbia get access to employment and jobs to build a future for

themselves.

[1605]

What have

we done in respect of our constitutional obligations, in addition to the fact

that we are at treaty tables? Well, we have a program and policy underway, being

implemented by the Ministry of Forests for forestry and range agreements — $95

million committed over three years. The First Nations Summit may not like it,

but we can't keep up with the demand for these dollars because so many first

nations are coming to the table saying: "Yes, it's time for us to sit down

with government and negotiate agreements that will help make a difference in our

lives."

Are they

treaties? No. We don't claim that they are treaties. But they are a step along

the way to building a relationship in which the parties — far from denying

that they exist or have rights or title — are actually trying to negotiate

practical, workable accommodations within the spirit of a general recognition

that it's time to do that. It's time to make a difference in the lives of

aboriginal peoples. It's time for government to sit down and acknowledge that

which the courts have been telling us for nearly 20 years. We have

constitutional obligations here. We're trying to make a difference there.

We've

explored a whole host of other opportunities. In fact, my recollection is that

the former government, the government of which the member opposite was a member,

took the position that Treaty 8 had said goodbye and shut the door to the

interests of the first nations of Treaty 8 once and for all in 1898, and that

was the end of it. We didn't have to deal with their issues anymore. They had

ceded, released and surrendered their rights, and that was the end of it.

Well, you

can pretend that issues have gone away, but that doesn't make them go away. What

was happening was that oil and gas companies were starting to make

under-the-table deals to try to get access to oil and gas territory. That's not

a good way to do business. Over time, step by step, we have taken other

initiatives with Treaty 8 first nations to try to see if we can come to a table

to negotiate what are called set-aside issues, to enter into some understanding

that would allow us to provide a measure — admittedly not a massive amount —

of value and benefit from the oil and gas activity that takes place in Treaty 8

territory.

We weren't

that. I think we have, however, been able to conclude a protocol agreement that

allows us to continue the good work that's been done, to try to build some sense

of shared community understanding among the Treaty 8 first

[ Page 10975 ]

nations and, for our part, to continue to do work — for example, like the

work we did in providing $443,000 in funding to hire a wildlife biologist — to

provide Treaty 8 first nations with enhanced capacity to participate in

government's initiatives, to provide them with GIS training and other projects

so that they can do their own traditional use studies.

It's all

good work that's not just about short-term value. It's about building

relationships. It's about building a measure of trust. And yes, I know there are

first nations who are not there. They don't share our agenda. They don't

recognize or don't have the same sense that this is about practical, workable

relationships as well as about important issues of rights and title, but we're

continuing to work on that. We're continuing to work on that.

In none of

that have we been held back by the fact that over three years we have in fact

had, in a disciplined and orderly way, a reduction in the negotiation staff in

the ministry. But I think that what we have done shows that sometimes when you

reduce things, you've got the opportunity to reinvent how you do business, and

we've become very effective at the business that we do.

J. Kwan:

It remains to be seen how effective this government is in the area of treaty

negotiations. The reality is this…. And you know what? Any day, I would take

the First Nations Summit's word over this government's and this minister's word.

Is this

minister claiming that since they took office, they have never and they have not

cut the budget for the treaty negotiations office?

Interjection.

[1610]

J. Kwan:

Is the minister claiming that? Absolutely not. Over the four years that this

government took office, they absolutely slashed the budget for treaty

negotiations. The minister might claim otherwise, but the reality doesn't change

itself just because the minister wishes it to be different. The minister can

claim whatever he wants to claim, but the people of British Columbia know the

difference. Most importantly, the aboriginal community knows the difference, for

they are at the table with this government. It is this government who launched

this ill-conceived referendum on aboriginal people about minority rights —

having the majority vote on the issues — that infuriated and insulted the

aboriginal community. It's this government and this Attorney General who led

that fight. It is this government that has done irreparable harm and has

actually damaged the relationship with aboriginal people with some of its

so-called principled positions and ideology that it's undertaken.

Interjection.

J. Kwan:

The Minister of Labour is asking: what language am I speaking? What land am

I living in? I live in the land where Canadians….

Interjections.

The

Chair: Order, please. Order, order, order. Let's have some order here on

both sides of the House, please.

Member for

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, let's get back to the debate for the Attorney

General's ministry.

J. Kwan:

I live in the land where Canadians should have the right to be presumed innocent

until they are proven guilty, unlike the piece of legislation that was

introduced by the member for Vancouver-Burrard this morning.

The

Chair: Member, member. Member, let's get back to the Ministry of Attorney

General, please. Keep your comments to that ministry.

J. Kwan:

I would happily do that, Mr. Chair. The land in which I live is the land where

constitutional rights are being honoured and not….

The

Chair: Member, member. Member, carry on with questions to the Attorney

General, please.

J. Kwan:

Yes, constitutional rights that should be honoured; constitutional rights which

the aboriginal community claim and continue to fight for in the courts and

around the Legislature; constitutional rights where this government could just

rip apart because of their own ideology…. We shall see later on today how the

Attorney General is going to vote on those pieces of legislation around our

fundamental, basic constitutional rights. I can't wait for that to happen.

Claiming

that somehow the government has met with the aboriginal community lots of times

and then proceeding to ignore the question that was put to the minister about

meeting with the First Nations Summit, about the budgeting issues with the

treaty negotiations office…. That's the request that the First Nations Summit

had asked of this minister that I put on record. No wonder aboriginal community

leaders and others in British Columbia don't trust this government. They choose

to ignore what's brought to their attention, because it doesn't fit their

agenda. It doesn't fit their strategic approaches.

The

aboriginal community, through the First Nations Summit, specifically asked to

meet with the minister about the reduced budget for the treaty negotiation

office, not about treaty negotiations generally. The Attorney General knows very

well the question that I put to him, but it doesn't stop him from distorting

what I put to him. Then for him to get on some sort of high horse and talk about

how he's consulted — from this Attorney General, who admitted on record last

week that he and this government did not consult with the aboriginal community

on the B.C. Rail deal…. So much for consultation — consultation only when it

fits the government's agenda, not when it is necessary to build relations and to

build trust with the aboriginal community.

[ Page 10976 ]

Interjections.

The

Chair: Order, please. Member, order, please.

[1615]

J. Kwan:

The Minister of Labour is saying: "Well, why don't you get out and not just

stay in this chamber?" Well, actually, I have gotten out, and members of

the community have widespread opinions about the performance of this government

and this Minister of Labour. The aboriginal community and many others are saying

to this minister and to this government…

Interjections.

The

Chair: Order, please. Order, please. Let's have some order on both sides of

the House here.

J. Kwan:

…that they're not listening to the people. In fact, we have a situation in

this House where a piece of legislation could pass without backbench MLAs

reading it.

The

Chair: Member, take your seat, please. Member, I've asked you now not to

bring up…. Stay on vote 11, please. This is the Ministry of Attorney General.

I'd ask you to confine your questions to that ministry, please, without

reference to legislation.

J. Kwan:

I apologize. I did digress because of the heckling from the Minister of Labour.

I did digress, and I do apologize. You know what? For the Minister of Labour to

suggest that I don't listen to the people…. Maybe he should look in the mirror

and see for himself who is listening and who is not.

Maybe this

government, including this Attorney General, should stop and reflect for a

moment not just on his own point of view and on this government's point of view

but, rather, on the points of view of other people and, on the issue around

treaty negotiations, most particularly on the aboriginal community's point of

view. Maybe that's where things have gone wrong for this government. They refuse

to listen. They can only hear their own ideology and the people who sing from

their own song sheet. Those who don't are completely swiped aside as though

somehow they don't have anything to contribute to the table.

You can

tell by the Attorney General's comment just now. The aboriginal community, the

people he claims are not going to bring a result in final treaty negotiation

stages, are just cast aside. Then the minister will go on to say that they

should reflect and look and see what it is that they are demanding. Maybe this

Attorney General and this government should reflect on the history of British

Columbia and what has been done to the aboriginal community and the pain and the

suffering that still exist today as part of the treaty negotiation process.

Maybe the Attorney General and this government should reflect on that before he

makes those comments. I dare the minister to say in this House that the

government did not, since he took office, reduce the budget for the treaty

negotiations office, for it is not true. It's simply not true.

Hon. G.

Plant: I'm not going to pretend that the budget has been static. What I have

done is used the actual numbers that lie underneath the global budget figures to

point out that over last year to this year, there have in fact been no

reductions in the number of full-time-equivalents who support the negotiation

work and that the only reduction in salaries taking place last year over this

year is about $194,000 out of the $6 million reduction.

What I'm

asking — and it may be too much for the opposition, but I am asking it — is

that when we talk about reductions or changes or increases, we get below the

global numbers down to what those numbers actually represent. There has

definitely been a reduction year over year since the first service plan of this

ministry when I took office. The member says it was four years ago. It may feel

like four years, but it hasn't, I don't think, yet been four years. It's not

even yet been three.

[1620]

There have

been some reductions. They were planned. They were contemplated in the first

service plans that we tabled, and we have reorganized the ministry to make the

best use of our resources. I think we've become very, very effective in moving

from an approach that was a little bit more like trying to be all things to all

people everywhere at the same time to trying to respond strategically to the

priorities that are not just identified by this government but that I think

often are shared priorities. Certainly to some extent, Canada has also worked

hard to try to identify lead tables — tables that are very close to final

agreement — and they worked hard to try to make AIPs possible at those tables.

Those tables happen to be tables where the first nations community was very

supportive of the drive towards AIP, and they helped their leadership get to

AIP.

That's the

reality. We are now at final agreement negotiations at four tables. We are at

treaty negotiations at a number of other tables around the province. We continue

to maintain an effective presence at those tables. I do know that the tables

themselves occasionally conduct assessments of the progress that they are making

or that they are not making. They identify issues that are roadblocks and try to

work out ways to deal with those roadblock issues. I think that if you can't

have that discussion, then you're just not participating with eyes open in this

very challenging process.

We have, as

a government, made a significant number of departures from the policies that we

inherited. I referred to some of them in my last answer. I left out, of course,

a reference to the throne speech of 2003 and the statement of regret and

reconciliation contained in that throne speech, which I think was an

unprecedented step forward for a government. We have taken the policy approach

that the former government had on the issue of certainty — which was to demand

[ Page 10977 ]

something close to cede, release and surrender — and we have modified that

approach.

We took the

policy of the former government, which was to reject any approach or request for

revenue-sharing, and we have in fact implemented revenue-sharing policies, which

in the case of the Forestry ministry alone represent, so far, a $95 million

commitment. We took the former government's rejection of the idea of cooperative

management, and we have said that we want to move forward to explore ideas about

cooperative management and so on.

I think the

list of things that we have done is a list of progressive and constructive

initiatives. We could choose to characterize the list all we want. I think,

though, you've got to at least start with the evidence, and the evidence is

there. I've referred to some of it over the course of the last two answers.

Maybe I'll have the chance to refer to more as we go forward.

In respect

of the letter that gave rise to this series of exchanges, I certainly understand

that the summit is concerned about whether or not we are maintaining an adequate

presence at negotiation tables. Given the need to ensure that we make the most

effective possible use of limited public resources, I think that we are making

effective use of resources and that we have adequate resources at the tables to

achieve our strategic objectives. That isn't to say I won't continue to ask for

more. I will do that, but I think we've got a great opportunity with what we've

got. I think the track record of success we've shown is that we can achieve

success within a budget framework that involves exercising some measure of

discipline.

J. Kwan:

I just want to be clear on record with respect to the budget cuts that the

government has brought forward in the TNO office over four years, and that

includes the '05-06 budget year for the service plan — so since the government

took office until '05-06 in terms of the budget year that the government has put

forward.

Let's be

clear. This minister, this Attorney General, knows very well that he could not

claim that there have been no cuts in the TNO office. The issue that the first

nations take with the minister is that with these cuts there has been, in their

view, a compromising of the treaty negotiations in terms of the work that needs

to be done.

You know,

the minister will just say: "Hey, you know, everything is fine." This

government likes to claim that everything is just fine, and they continually say

that — all of their ministers. I know that's their message: "Everything

is fine. Don't worry. Be happy. The opposition are just being naysayers. Don't

worry about it."

[1625]

But you

know what? The aboriginal communities, on this issue, have been working very

hard to try to raise issues with the minister in spite of what this government

tries to do, and that is to blindside them with issues related to aboriginal

communities' rights and title, like the B.C. Rail issue. Even though the

government does this kind of thing, the aboriginal communities continue to say

that they remain committed to good-faith negotiations with the provincial and

federal governments and that they urge the government to get to the table to

resolve these issues and that they are at the table always.

You know

what? I trust the aboriginal communities and their words over this minister and

over this government any day, Mr. Chair.

Hon. G.

Plant: With respect to the issue of consultation — not consultation in the

constitutional sense, but meetings and so on — I am advised that I have done

36 meetings with treaty groups and chiefs in the last year. It felt like quite a

lot of meetings. Thirty-six meetings, I think, represents a significant

commitment on my part to the process.

[H. Long in the

chair.]

With

respect to the budget numbers, well, the member just can't help herself. She

can't help herself in the desire to avoid dealing with the reality. She

mentioned the '05-06 plan. She did quote a number from the '05-06 plan and, I

think, the same number for the '06-07 plan. We go down in the estimates for the

current year from $28.9 million to $21.8 million.

What is

that gap? Is that a gap that relates to negotiation funding? No, it is not a gap

that relates to changes in the budget for negotiations. It reflects the fact

that the economic development funding is stopping. As it goes to zero for next

year — as that $7 million that was in the budget for this year is not there

for next year — then the budget for the treaty negotiations office is reduced

from $28.9 million to $21.8 million. I know it's hard to get to the facts. If

the member were to look at the negotiations line, the funding number on that for

next year goes up.

J. Kwan:

Talk about distorting reality. Talk about it. The minister knows full well what

I said and what I put on record. Since this government took office, this

minister cannot…

Interjections.

The

Chair: Order.

J. Kwan:

…claim, by any stretch of the imagination, that they did not reduce

significantly the treaty negotiations office budget. Since this government took

office, including and up to its service plan to the year 2005-06…. Over those

years the minister and this government have cut some 57 percent of the treaty

negotiations office budget. That's what this government has done.

This

minister likes to get up and say: "Gee, in the '05-06 year, there have been

no cuts. Look how great we are doing." You know what? The cuts have