British Columbia Hansard — Monday, May 10, 2004 (37th Parliament, 5th Session) (h0510pm-07) (h0510pm 07)

h0510pm-07

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

5th Session, 37th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Monday, May 10, 2004 Afternoon Sitting Volume 25, Number 7 THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE RICHMOND, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Honourable Iona Campagnolo 5TH SESSION, 37TH PARLIAMENT SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Claude Richmond EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council ............................................................................................................Hon. Gordon Campbell Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations ...............................................................................................................Hon.

Sindi Hawkins Deputy Premier and Minister of Children and Family Development ................................................................................ Hon. Christy Clark Minister of State for Early Childhood Development...................................................................................................................Hon. Linda Reid Minister of Advanced Education................................................................................................................................................ Hon.

Shirley Bond Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries..................................................................................................................... Hon. John van Dongen Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations..................................................................................... Hon. Geoff Plant Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services ................................................................................................ Hon.

Murray Coell Minister of State for Women's and Seniors' Services................................................................................................................... Hon. Ida Chong Minister of Education ............................................................................................................................................................Hon. Tom Christensen Minister of Energy and Mines...............................................................................................................................................Hon.

Richard Neufeld Minister of State for Mining...................................................................................................................................................................Hon. Pat Bell Minister of Finance.........................................................................................................................................................................Hon. Gary Collins Minister of Forests................................................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Michael de Jong Minister of State for Forestry Operations.................................................................................................................................. Hon. Roger Harris Minister of Health Services.........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Colin Hansen Minister of State for Mental Health and Addiction Services ....................................................................................................Hon.

Susan Brice Minister of Human Resources........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Stan Hagen Minister of Management Services ............................................................................................................................................. Hon. Joyce Murray Minister of Provincial Revenue.................................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Rick Thorpe Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General...................................................................................................................... Hon. Rich Coleman Minister of Skills Development and Labour......................................................................................................................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Minister of Small Business and Economic Development ...............................................................................................................Hon.

John Les Minister of Sustainable Resource Management ....................................................................................................................Hon. George Abbott Minister of State for Resort Development............................................................................................................................... Hon. Sandy Santori Minister of Transportation...........................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Kevin Falcon Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection ............................................................................................................................... Hon.

Bill Barisoff LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Deputy Speaker ....................................................................................................................................................................................John Weisbeck Leader of the Opposition .......................................................................................................................................................................Joy MacPhail Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole..............................................................................................................................................

Harold Long Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ........................................................................................................................................... E. George MacMinn Clerk Assistant.........................................................................................................................................................................................Robert Vaive Clerk Assistant and Law Clerk ...............................................................................................................................................................Ian D.

Izard Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees ....................................................................................................................................... Craig H. James Clerk Assistant and Committee Clerk ..........................................................................................................................................Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sergeant-at-Arms............................................................................................................................................................................. A.A.

Humphreys Director, Hansard Services ..................................................................................................................................................Anthony Dambrauskas Legislative Librarian ..................................................................................................................................................................................Jane Taylor Legislative Comptroller...............................................................................................................................................................................Peter Bray Published by British Columbia Hans ard Services, and printed under the authority of the Speaker by the Queen's Printer, Victoria.

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

Party Standings: Liberal 74; New Democratic 2; Independent Liberal 3 ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Abbott, Hon. George (L) ..........................................................................Shuswap Anderson, Val J. (L)............................................................... Vancouver-Langara Barisoff, Hon. Bill (L)...............................................Penticton–Okanagan Valley Bell, Hon.

Pat (L) ..................................................................Prince George North Belsey, Bill (L)....................................................................................North Coast Bennett, Bill (L) ..............................................................................East Kootenay Bhullar, Tony (Ind. L) ................................................................... Surrey-Newton Bloy, Harry (L).....................................................................................Burquitlam Bond, Hon. Shirley (L)..........................................

Prince George–Mount Robson Bray, Jeff (L) ........................................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Brenzinger, Elayne (Ind. L)...........................................................Surrey-Whalley Brice, Hon. Susan (L)...................................................................... Saanich South Bruce, Hon. Graham P. (L) ................................................. Cowichan-Ladysmith Campbell, Hon. Gordon (L) ..............................................

Vancouver–Point Grey Cheema, Gulzar S. (L).....................................................Surrey–Panorama Ridge Chong, Hon. Ida (L) ......................................................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Christensen, Hon. Tom (L) ...................................................... Okanagan-Vernon Chutter, Dave (L) ..............................................................................Yale-Lillooet Clark, Hon.

Christy (L) ....................................................Port Moody–Westwood Cobb, Walt (L) ................................................................................Cariboo South Coell, Hon. Murray (L) ..........................................Saanich North and the Islands Coleman, Hon. Rich (L)................................................Fort Langley–Aldergrove Collins, Hon. Gary (L) ..........................................................Vancouver-Fairview de Jong, Hon. Michael (L) ........................................Abbotsford–Mount Lehman Falcon, Hon.

Kevin (L) ............................................................ Surrey-Cloverdale Hagen, Hon. Stan (L) ......................................................................Comox Valley Halsey-Brandt, Greg (L) ............................................................Richmond Centre Hamilton, Arnie (L)..............................................................Esquimalt-Metchosin Hansen, Hon. Colin (L) .......................................................Vancouver-Quilchena Harris, Hon.

Roger (L) ................................................................................Skeena Hawes, Randy (L)............................................................... Maple Ridge–Mission Hawkins, Hon. Sindi (L) ........................................................... Kelowna-Mission Hayer, Dave S. (L) ..................................................................... Surrey-Tynehead Hogg, Gordon (L)................................................................... Surrey–White Rock Hunter, Mike (L) .....................................................................................

Nanaimo Jarvis, Daniel (L)........................................................North Vancouver–Seymour Johnston, Ken (L).............................................................. Vancouver-Fraserview Kerr, Brian J. (L) ................................................................ Malahat–Juan de Fuca Krueger, Kevin (L)................................................... Kamloops–North Thompson Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP)................................

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Lee, Richard T. (L).........................................................................Burnaby North Lekstrom, Blair (L)................................................................... Peace River South Les, Hon. John (L).................................................................... Chilliwack-Sumas Locke, Brenda (L) ............................................................. Surrey–Green Timbers Long, Harold (L) .................................................... Powell River–Sunshine Coast MacKay, Dennis (L).........................................................

Bulkley Valley–Stikine McMahon, Wendy (L).............................................. Columbia River–Revelstoke MacPhail, Joy (NDP) ............................................................ Vancouver-Hastings Manhas, Karn (L) ..............................................Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Masi, Reni (L) ..................................................................................... Delta North Mayencourt, Lorne (L)............................................................Vancouver-Burrard Murray, Hon. Joyce (L).............................................................

New Westminster Nebbeling, Ted (L)..................................................... West Vancouver–Garibaldi Nettleton, Paul (Ind. L) ...................................................Prince George–Omineca Neufeld, Hon. Richard (L) .......................................................

Peace River North Nijjar, Rob (L).....................................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Nuraney, John (L)..................................................................Burnaby-Willingdon Orr, Sheila (L) .............................................................................Victoria-Hillside Penner, Barry (L)......................................................................... Chilliwack-Kent Plant, Hon. Geoff (L) ...........................................................

Richmond-Steveston Reid, Judith (L)....................................................................... Nanaimo-Parksville Reid, Hon. Linda (L) ..................................................................... Richmond East Richmond, Hon. Claude (L)...................................................................Kamloops Roddick, Valerie (L)............................................................................ Delta South Sahota, Patty (L).......................................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Santori, Hon. Sandy (L) ..............................................

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

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

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

Gillian Trumper Bulkley Valley–Stikine ................................................................ Dennis MacKay Burnaby North................................................................................ Richard T. Lee Burnaby-Edmonds.............................................................................. Patty Sahota Burnaby-Willingdon ........................................................................John Nuraney Burquitlam............................................................................................

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

John Les Columbia River–Revelstoke .....................................................Wendy McMahon Comox Valley .............................................................................Hon. Stan Hagen Coquitlam-Maillardville............................................................... Richard Stewart Cowichan-Ladysmith .........................................................Hon. Graham P.

Bruce Delta North.............................................................................................Reni Masi Delta South...................................................................................Valerie Roddick East Kootenay .....................................................................................Bill Bennett Esquimalt-Metchosin .................................................................... Arnie Hamilton Fort Langley–Aldergrove....................................................... Hon.

Rich Coleman Kamloops ......................................................................... Hon. Claude Richmond Kamloops–North Thompson.......................................................... Kevin Krueger Kelowna–Lake Country .................................................................John Weisbeck Kelowna-Mission ...................................................................Hon. Sindi Hawkins Langley........................................................................................... Lynn Stephens Malahat–Juan de Fuca.......................................................................

Brian J. Kerr Maple Ridge–Mission ......................................................................Randy Hawes Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows............................................................... Ken Stewart Nanaimo .............................................................................................Mike Hunter Nanaimo-Parksville..............................................................................Judith Reid Nelson-Creston......................................................................... Blair F.

Suffredine New Westminster .................................................................... Hon. Joyce Murray North Coast .......................................................................................... Bill Belsey North Island.......................................................................................... Rod Visser North Vancouver–Lonsdale .................................................... Katherine Whittred North Vancouver–Seymour ..............................................................

Daniel Jarvis Oak Bay–Gordon Head.................................................................Hon. Ida Chong Okanagan-Vernon ..............................................................Hon. Tom Christensen Okanagan-Westside................................................................... Hon. Rick Thorpe Peace River North ...............................................................Hon. Richard Neufeld Peace River South ..........................................................................Blair Lekstrom Penticton–Okanagan Valley...................................................... Hon.

Bill Barisoff Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain......................................................Karn Manhas Port Moody–Westwood ...........................................................Hon. Christy Clark Powell River–Sunshine Coast............................................................Harold Long Prince George North .........................................................................Hon. Pat Bell Prince George–Mount Robson................................................. Hon. Shirley Bond Prince George–Omineca .................................................................

Paul Nettleton Richmond Centre ...................................................................Greg Halsey-Brandt Richmond East ............................................................................ Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ...................................................................Hon. Geoff Plant Saanich North and the Islands..................................................Hon. Murray Coell Saanich South............................................................................. Hon. Susan Brice Shuswap ................................................................................

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

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

Ken Johnston Vancouver-Hastings......................................................................... Joy MacPhail Vancouver-Kensington .................................................................... Patrick Wong Vancouver-Kingsway............................................................................ Rob Nijjar Vancouver-Langara...................................................................... Val J. Anderson Vancouver–Mount Pleasant .............................................Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey..................................................... Hon.

Gordon Campbell Vancouver-Quilchena ............................................................. Hon. Colin Hansen Victoria–Beacon Hill ...............................................................................Jeff Bray Victoria-Hillside.....................................................................................Sheila Orr West Kootenay–Boundary ......................................................Hon. Sandy Santori West Vancouver–Capilano ............................................................... Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Garibaldi............................................................

Ted Nebbeling Yale-Lillooet .....................................................................................Dave Chutter

CONTENTS Monday, May 10, 2004 Afternoon Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Introductions by Members ....................................................................................................... ........................................... 10957 Tributes ....................................................................................................................... ............................................................ 10957 Frederick Gordon Antoine Hon. M.

Coell Introduction and First Reading of Bills........................................................................................ ....................................... 10958 Vital Statistics Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 43) Hon. C. Hansen Correction Act (Bill 44) Hon. R. Coleman Statements (Standing Order 25B) .............................................................................................................................. ........... 10958 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................................................................................................................. ....................................................... 10960 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.............................................................................................................. .................................................. 10962 Letter from E. Phillips, dated April 29, 2004 Committee of Supply............................................................................................................ ................................................. 10963 Estimates: Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management (continued) Hon. G.

Abbott Second Reading of Bills........................................................................................................ ................................................. 10963 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............................................................................................................ ................................................. 10965 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........................................................................................................ ................................................. 11004 Safe Streets Act (Bill M202) (continued) Trespass to Property Act (Bill M203) (continued)

10957 MONDAY, MAY 10, 2004 The House met at 2:04 p.m. Introductions by Members D. 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 to- day, 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 Van- couver Naval Veterans Association for initiating, de- signing, 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 Memori al 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. R. 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 cou- ple of days here in Victoria with his father. Would the House please make him feel welcome. K.

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 Champi- onship 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 an- nounce 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 Vancouve r 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 esta blishing the indigenous- operated Nicola Valley Institute of Technology, which was founded in 1984. By 1995 it was part of the provin- cial college system with accredited programs.

He leaves his memory wi th his wife, Janice; his children Laura, Albert, Sara, John Paul, Stefany and Tracey; and grandchildren Ty son, 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 as- sist us in our work. Previously Jane worked as the di- rector of the Ministry of Attorney General library. In addition to these years of experience, she brings great enthusiasm to her new po sition. 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 st aff.

They are starting today and work through to the end of the Labour Day long weekend, providing to urs every 20 minutes, in- cluding weekends and stat utory holidays. They are post-secondary students who will welcome tourists from around the world. In total, the tour office can of- fer tours in English, French, German, Spanish, Manda- rin, Cantonese and Japanese. I would like you to wel- come Lianna Chu, Céline Anderson, David Nicholls,

10958 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, MAY 10, 2004 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 id entification, specifically birth, marriage and death certificates. Amendments will also allow a parent to apply to have a child's sur- name 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 Sep- tember 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 maki ng identity documents like birth, marriage and death cert ificates more secure. The amendments we are introduc ing today align with rec- ommendations 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 someon e's behalf, who want to get a copy of a certificate to get written permission from that person named on the certificate; permit- ting 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 relat- ing to these certificates.

We are also making an am endment 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 fa thers can apply to have a child's surname changed at th e same time as they ap- ply 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 Cor- rection Act. Hon. R. Coleman: I move that the bill be intro- duced 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 commu- nity. 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 cen- tres 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 col- leagues, an announcement at the British Columbia In- stitute 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 addi- tion of 1,145 new seats will provide more educational opportunities in applied and natural sciences, business

MONDAY, MAY 10, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 10959 and media, computing and electronics, engineering technology, health sciences and trades. As a parent to three children, I can attest to the im- portance of the availability of more seats in the post- secondary institutions. This is not only highly in de- mand from the students but also driven by our recover- ing 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 com- mitments to add 25,000 seats to the post-secondary system by 2010.

The BCIT seat s are just part of that strategy. Other details includ e 8,000 additional seats in the Fraser region, including a new SFU campus in Sur- rey and a new Kwantlen University College Trades and Technology Centre in Cloverdale. A new UBC Okanagan and a new Okanagan Col- lege 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 Op en 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 fo r the students. I am looking forward to seeing even more announcements in the months to come. COMMUNITY OF SAYWARD R. 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 riv- ers. It sits as a gateway to the spectacular Johnstone Strait. It's a great setting.

Nestled amongst the moun- tains, it's flat and fertile and has been the home of for- estry, 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 th eir 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 ware house, and they have plans to attract new commercial and recreational boaters. They've been awarded an in frastructure grant to ex- tend 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 dry- land sort, both in forestry and in tourism. They have a new gas station and store. They have signed a man- agement 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, Ser- geant RandAlly. They have management agreements with the Ministry of Forests to conduct tours and main- tain the trails and interpreti ve signs.

They are extend- ing 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 over- top of Mount Kusam. It's going to be a great day and a great race. [1420] Here are the results. Th ey 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. B. Locke: T h i s p a s t S u n d a y w a s M o t h e r ' s D a y . 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 univer se. They challenge me — some- times 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 a ll 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 Leg- islature 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

10960 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, MAY 10, 2004 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 J. MacPhail: The Minister of Health blames the federal government for not defining "medically neces- sary." 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 con- cerned 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 gen- eral, but in the specific it is often easier. The Minister of Health knows the patient. He 's talked to him about his c o n d i t i o n . D o e s t h e M i n i s t e r o f H e a l t h S e r v i c e s c o n - sider 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 he alth minister in govern- ment, 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. J. MacPhail: Exactly. This minister would say that the

interpretation of the Canada Health Act has been called difficult, but over the years provincial govern- ments have paid billions of dollars for what they inter- pret 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 interpreta- tion letter says: "Provinces, along with medical profes- sionals, have the prerogative and responsibility for interpreting what physician services are medically nec- essary." [1425] The member for Chilliwack-Kent's doctor thought the surgery was medically necessary, because he regis- tered 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 per- formed on the member from Chilliwack? Hon. C.

Hansen: While the member knows I'm not at liberty to discuss personal medical histories of peo- ple 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 sur- geries cancelled because of a very unfortunate and to- tally 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 doc- tors. Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplementary. J.

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 nec- essary services are provided to everyone regardless of their financial situation. That's the principle of univer- sality. The member from Chilliwack paid an expensive facility fee. Here's another federal minister's

interpretation let- ter 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 neces- sary 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. J.

MacPhail: …some have described that as queue- jumping, special access for some based on their finan- cial 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

MONDAY, MAY 10, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 10961 s h o u l d b e t o t h e C a n a d a H e a l t h A c t . W e d o n ' t k n o w exactly where that's going to go, but I am sure it will be part of the discussions that first ministers will be hold- ing 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 esti- mates: "The Canada Health Act dictates that a medi- cally 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 vio- lation of the Canada Health Act? Hon. C.

Hansen: T h e p r o c e s s t h a t w e h a v e i s o n e 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 ser- vices 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 ser- vices under a provincial health insurance plan, they vio- late the user-charge provision of the act. That's

section 19. That

section of the act states that in order that a prov- ince may qualify for a full ca sh 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 forthcom- ing from the federal government, or is there a secret federal-provincial Liberal ag reement to take apart pub- lic 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. Pa tients 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 W. 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. W. 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 questi on 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 in- terior health also have dad's best interests at heart." He

10962 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, MAY 10, 2004 goes on to say that he feels that these health care deci- sions 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 unfo rtunate 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 in dividual 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 P. Nettleton: The Minister of Transportation has stated that he is glad to be on record backing his prede- cessor'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 minist ry's first attempts at pro- viding information in the first of the government's bi- weekly updates.

"Much ado about very little and need- ing a little more meat on the bone," said Paulson. Noth- ing much has changed. He also referenced one of the government's promises that the proponents must dem- onstrate 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. P. Nettleton: Again, nothing much has changed. My question is to the Mini ster 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 ques- tion.

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 rela- tionship of some sort with the railway had an opportu- nity to benefit from the first nations benefits trust — a $15 million fund that they will have exclusively avail- able for them to decide what to do.

In terms of the north, we know about the $135 mil- lion northern development initiative that will come out of those proceeds — controlled by northerners to allow northerners to make economic decisions that can bene- fit 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 rec- ognize is that all of the en ormous 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 J. MacPhail: Earlier this session the government introduced and passed Bill 3, legislation that took away the rights of same-sex couples to have author- ity over the remains of their loved ones.

The Minis- ter of Finance told the public that the government would fix the bill to accommodate the public's con- cern. To the Solicitor General: it's been almost two months. How long do we ha ve to wait for this gov- ernment 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 regu lation through a definition. Government said we would fix that legislation. We will fix that legislation. J. 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 re- spond 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 questi on period, dated April 29, 2004, from Mr. Elton Phillips. Leave granted.

MONDAY, MAY 10, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 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 Min- istry 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 (contin- ued). 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 r e s p e c t t o h o w w e c a n m o v e f o r w a r d o n s o m e o f t h e more important issues, such as strata ownership and taxation, bed-and-breakfasts, and other related assess- ment 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 commit- tee 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 resolu- tions, 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 sec- ond 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 an d thereby preserve public confidence in the real estate sector. The new act fur- thers 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 en- hance 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 compensa- tion levels to protect consumers who have suffered loss caused by the theft or fraud of licensees. In addition, the new act will increase public confi- dence 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 re- sponsible for the licensing, education and discipline of all real estate licensees.

The Real Estate Council will be equipped with a broad range of new investiga- tive 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 in- dependent contractor status of many licensees and al- lows for the development of regulations to permit li- censees to carry on business through a personal ser- vices corporation.

The new act will reduce the regulatory burden im- posed by government on licensees by investing the Real Estate Council with rule-making power over li- censing requirements, continuing professional educa- tion, real estate business standards and the conduct of licensees. This will give the council the flexibility needed to respond to changi ng market conditions and to adopt rules appropriate to the type of business car- ried on by a licensee. Mr. Speaker, government has undertaken extensive consultations with the real estate industry and the pub- lic during the development of this legislation.

The new Real Estate Services Act, together with the new Real

10964 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, MAY 10, 2004 Estate Development Marketing Act, which deals with the marketing of new developments, will provide Brit- ish Columbia with a modern and effective regulatory framework and will help ensure the continuation of public confidence in this important sector of the pro- vincial 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 en- hance 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 con- solidating 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, regard- less of the nature of the development property.

Devel- opers will also be able to use purchasers' deposit mon- eys to construct the developm ent, if those moneys are appropriately insured. In order to protect purchasers, disclosure state- ments will continue to require full and plain disclo- sure of material facts. A purchaser who does not re- ceive disclosure will have the right to rescind their purchase agreement with the developer at any time. Purchasers receiving disclosure will have a standard- ized seven-day period in which to rescind their pur- chase agreements, regardless of the type and location of their property.

With regard to deposit moneys, the new act re- quires 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 effe ctive 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 ap- propriate 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 comprehe nsive review of British Co- lumbia's real estate legislation in nearly 50 years. Ex- tensive consultations have been undertaken to ensure that the new real estate legi slation is effective, respon- sive 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 de- cided it was time to modernize the act, and that's ex- actly what we are doing here today. The Highway (Industrial) Act is being renamed the Industrial Roads Act. It provides a framework to en- sure the safety of industrial roads and the drivers, ve- hicles, equipment and traffic that operate on them.

This bill streamlines the Highway (Industrial) Act and con- tinues 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 ar e 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 require- ments.

This government made a clear new-era commit- ment to cut red tape and el iminate inefficiencies. The government has already eliminated over 90,000 out-

MONDAY, MAY 10, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 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. Ou r 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 (Indus trial) 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 Transpor tation 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 legis- lative 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 bur- den to eliminate inefficiencies. We are well on target to achieve our one-third reduction. In keeping with this ne w-era commitment, I present Bill 47, the Transportation Ac t. The Transportation Act consolidates key highway legislation into one organ- ized, plain-language document that replaces four other ministry statutes.

It results in a net reduction of regula- tory requirements, and it corrects previous problems by using updated language, ensuring consistency and organizing the legislation in an easily accessible way. [1455] On 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 ac- cording 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 harmo- nizes provincial highways legislation with the Com- munity Charter. In many places the old legislation does not distinguish between municipal and rural high- ways. Provincial and local government responsibilities are often duplicated and overlap one another.

The new act sets out that the Minister of Transportation is re- sponsible for improvements, structures and public works relating to provincial highways, and it reinforces that municipal highways are a local government re- sponsibility 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 fu- ture traffic requirements. It fosters mutual planning between the ministry and local government around provincially controlled access highways.

It is intended to promote development thro ughout 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 statut es to find the highway leg- islation we're looking for. It's going to improve rela- tionships with local govern ment 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 Ac t, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for con- sideration 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 Re- sponsible 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 (con- tinued).

10966 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, MAY 10, 2004 P. 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 an- nouncements 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 gov- ernment'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 prem- ised," their press release reads, "on the continuing de- nial that aboriginal title and rights exist, while offering accommodation or benefits agreements to lessen their legal liability in the event that first nations prove abo- riginal 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 less- ened, 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 min- ister 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 at- tached.

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 trans- fer of existing rights rather than the creation of new ones. Therefore, consultation or accommodation is not re- quired.

The UBCIC is absolutely convinced that the exis- tence of the trust will be used by government at some point as a workable accommodation in the event of a le- gal 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 . I n d i a n C h i e f s t h a t t h e m e m b e r q u o t e d f r o m , b e - cause 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 re- lease. Nonetheless, let me attempt to answer what I think underlies the member's qu estion by referring the member to some parts of the estimates debate that have already taken place on this su bject. 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 othe r 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 un- ambiguous. 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. P. 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 re- lease. My question is to the mi nister. Proof of economic benefit — is that something that the minister may in- struct 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 miti- gated 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 mat- ter how many times you ask the question or how many times one attempts to craft a different question. The sug- gestion 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. P. Nettleton: I think it's important to put on record that in fact we will hold the minister to this — his as-

MONDAY, MAY 10, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 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 ques- tions around the trust issu e and then some budget questions around the TNO of fice.

Then I would like to move to the issue around th e representation agreement questions, then to the Fran k 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, par- ticularly relating to the refu gee 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 infor- mation 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 after- wards, 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 addi- tion 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 le- gal 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 mem- bers 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.

"A 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 re- garding aboriginal title and rights; and (2) response to possible consideration of the federal competition bureau assessing Crown fulfilment of fiduciary obligations re- garding 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 inter- ests in B.C.

Rail to CNR will not impact aboriginal title, rights or reserve interests. The province has taken the po- sition 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 inter- ests — 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 im- pact on those rights. Additionally, the provincial consul- tation policy states that there is no need to consult about renewals of existing tenures or permits.

The province ar- gues 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 in- terests if they might impact upon aboriginal title or rights.

"The provincial risk management approach involves denying that aboriginal title and rights exist while offer- ing 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 da- tabase to track all moneys paid to indigenous peoples so that this information can be readily accessible in the fu- ture, should the province need to show that it accommo- dated 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 pri- vatize B.C. Rail — and also, possibly, to show consulta- tion.

"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 worka- ble 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

10968 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, MAY 10, 2004 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 re- sponse 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 esti- mates of the Ministry of Attorney General on the treaty negotiations office. The member concluded her remarks with a ques- tion, and the question was an other version of the ques- tion 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 stri ngs 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 cor- rect position but, rather, th ere is some argument that a constitutional obligation arises on the face of the B.C. Rail investment partnership, then of course the ques- tion 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 aborigi- nal community takes a differ ent point of view. I might remind the minister that the aboriginal community, I suspect, will take the matter to the courts and there- fore really have a situation where certainty is further undermined in terms of ad dressing aboriginal land and title rights and in terms of addressing, from a business economic point of view, the question of cer- tainty in terms of economic investment and economic climate for British Columbia.

I think that the govern- ment's actions to date, which will potentially lead to further court action, do no t 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 opposi- tion 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 chal- lenge and whether or not the provincial government will assert that the introducti on or creation of the trust is evidence that they have put forward to accommo- date the aboriginal communi ty in the future. The lan- guage 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 interp ret 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 govern- ment'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 re spect of the B.C. Rail in- vestment 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. R a i l t o C N R , g o v e r n m e n t w i l l a r g u e t h a t t h e y h a v e a c - commodated the indigenous peoples through the crea- tion of the trust. Where indigenous communities partici- pated as beneficiaries of the trust, government will also likely use this information.

"The purposes of the trust include economic devel- opment, cultural purposes and educational opportuni- ties, 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 con- cluded quickly may be in response to that." Those are the concluding re marks from the legal opin- ion. 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 opin- ion 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

MONDAY, MAY 10, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 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 correspon- dence 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 an- swer 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 ho pe, represents an answer to the questions that have been asked about our inten- tions 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 question- ing. 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 posi- tion about the trust.

In spit e of that, the legal opinion came forward with these concerns that have been iden- tified. [1525] I think there is validity in the questions that have been put from the aborigin al community's point of view — absolutely, especially given the historical ex- periences 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 ex- periences to date? I would say I wouldn't blame them — absolutely not. There is a long road to go with re- spect to trust and relationsh ip-building.

I think it is incumbent on this minister to actually respond in writ- ing 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. N o w , I ' l l l e a v e t h a t u p t o t h e m i n i s t e r t o d e c i d e 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 con- cerns from the aboriginal co mmunity 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 trus t…. This is, again, in spite of the minister's assurances about the letters that have been forwarded to the abor iginal 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 At- torney General can protest a ll 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 relati ng to the ministry's fund- ing. 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 fr om. 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 let- ter, I think I have been pretty clear and on the record on these things, including ov er the last week or so when we have intermittently had the opportunity to debate the estimates of the tr eaty 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 au- thor 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 con- tinue to be as clear as I can that not only is there no basis for the concern that's been expressed, but no basis

10970 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, MAY 10, 2004 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 th at'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 negotia- tions 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 mi nor 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 re- duction in ministry FTEs from 3,514 in '02-03 to 3,464 for '03-04 — 50 FTE positions fewer.

In estimates de- bate last year the minister said that ministry staffing levels were reduced as a result of voluntary departures, early retirements and workfo rce adjustments. He went on to explain that two divi sions were merged into one and that all of the administrative support positions were consolidated into one branch. This year's estimates, howe ver, 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. Coul d the minister advise? The 18 FTEs that differ between a two-year….

What hap- pened 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 b een 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 ta lking 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 incor- porate 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 ques- tions, in terms of the broader ministry, for later. Let me specifically focu s 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 nego- tiations without at least consulting the other parties, nor should one party be able to divert funds away from a ne- gotiation table for other purposes — i.e., promoting ad- vancement 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 com- mitment to resolve treaties. Your government has stated that its priority is to expand efforts to achieve reconcilia- tion with first nations, but that is not reflected in the '04- 05 budget or the '05-06 budget plan for the treaty negotia- tions office. "Your government's strong desire to allow access to resources that are currently encumbered by aboriginal ti- tle 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.

" W e w i s h t o m e e t w i t h y o u a s s o o n a s p o s s i b l e t o 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 re- cent 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 se ctions 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 answ er to the concerns expressed by the First Nations Summit, which — and I'm not blaming them or being critical of them for this — re- flect an incomplete understanding of the way in which the operating budget for the ministry of the treaty ne- gotiations office is spent.

MONDAY, MAY 10, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 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 sub- ject 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 eco- nomic measures funding has no impact on our negoti- ating 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 mi nistry'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 negotiat- ing tables. We have very deliberately been strategic in the allocation of resources as a matter of priority, be- cause 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 agree- ments.

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 ever ywhere at the same time according to the same pace towards the same conclu- sion. That's sort of the top- down approach. It's an ap- proach that's easy to adopt because it doesn't require as much work in understanding the details of what's ac- tually happening. The second approach is maybe the bottom-up ap- proach.

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, unfortu- nately, 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 of British Columbia and the government of Canada are formally in negotiations, 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 mu ch 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 t h a t m u c h w o r k t o d o a n d w h e n w e a r e s i m p l y n o t 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 numb er of first nations around the province. Again, if you look at that landscape, even if you just take out that gr oup of people from the over- all 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 negotia- tors are saying they'd like the province or the federal government to move a little faster. Actually, there may be some tables where I wi s h w e c o u l d m o v e a l i t t l e 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 ta- bles.

We are making progress at the tables where pro- gress 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 negotia- tions do take a long time. Oftentimes with some groups it is perhaps more challenging than that of others; there a r e m o r e i s s u e s t o r e s o l v e t h a n t h a t o f o t h e r s .

A s w e 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

10972 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, MAY 10, 2004 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 addi tion to budget cuts that took place in the '02-03 budg et 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 mil- l i o n w o r t h o f c u t s o v e r a n u m b e r o f y e a r s .

T h a t ' s s i g - nificant 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 en- gaged 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 prac- tices 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 ex- presses what is implied by it. The $51 million, what- ever 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 adhe- sion agreement, and there was a big whacking chunk of money that was there for the Nisga'a final agree- ment. 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. Cer- tainly over the course of th e 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 bo mbast; that is a simple numerical fact.

There has been no time in this process where there have been four final agreement negotia- tions progressing, as is the case today. [1550] You can start with any big number you want, but the fact is that year over ye ar there is really no reduc- tion in the support, in the ne gotiating activities across the ministry as a whole. The member or the First Na- tions Summit uses the word "cuts" because it is the only word in their vocabulary. Th ey 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 sen- tence 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 trea ty 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 nego- tiation 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 na- tions that are at the AIP stage, stage 4, and took a bit of a measure of the landscape there, because we are look- ing for further opportunities. There's no doubt about it. I want success stories out of this process because I be- lieve that success will breed success.

If we get final agreements at those four ta bles, 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 qu estions 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 sen- sible 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 al- lows 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 ba- sis.

Instead of having to divi de 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 w o r k a s w e n e e d t o b y d o i n g i t a t t h e r e g i o n a l l e v e l . Yes, there are times and plac es 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 proba- bly make progress if you simply set up a teleconfer- ence.

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 help- ing you get either more effici ent or less efficient. Those are all, I think, opportunities for learning.

MONDAY, MAY 10, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 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 w e a r e e n s u r i n g t h a t w e h a v e a l l t h e r e s o u r c e s w e need to staff for final agreement tables. That means that at a small handful of AIP tables, we have a dia- logue 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 iden- tify issues, questions and challenges that are not neces- sarily the sorts of issues, questions and challenges where we would find an answ er just like that by put- ting another negotiator on the file or having another meeting a month, because there are more difficult is- sues. There are issues oftent imes around what the vi- sion 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 often- times, 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 inhib- ited in our ability to achi eve 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, ov er the last number of years the budget hasn't really be en impacted in the treaty negotiations office." You know what?

It just so happens that in the last four years, the treaty negotiations of- fice'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. Every- thing is fine." The minister likes to say that the opposi- tion uses the word "cut" irre spective of what reality is. Well, let me just tell the minister this. What this gov- ernment 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 invent- ing 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 acce

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	h0510pm-07
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	h0510pm 07
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	e92b067d731a599d563cb0a9f939a9407ebdbce2

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