2007 Legislative Session: Third Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MAY 29, 2007

Morning Sitting

Volume 21, Number 8

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Tabling Documents

Office of the Ombudsman, special report No. 31, Winning Fair and Square: A Report on the British Columbia Lottery Corporation's Prize Payout Process

Petitions

S. Hawkins

Tabling Documents

Major capital project plans for Kelowna

General Hospital, Vernon Jubilee Hospital and Royal Jubilee Hospital

expansions

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Office of the Premier

(continued)

Hon. G.

Campbell

C. James

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir

Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Aboriginal

Relations and Reconciliation (continued)

S. Fraser

C. Trevena

Hon. M. de

Jong

G. Coons

N. Simons

[ Page 8281 ]

TUESDAY, MAY 29, 2007

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present a

report of the Ombudsman, special report No. 31, Winning Fair and Square: A

Report on the British Columbia Lottery Corporation's Prize Payout Process.

Petitions

S. Hawkins: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of your constituent, I'm

presenting three petitions from Cue's GameRoom, Grill and Pizzeria regarding

changes to the existing liquor licence as well as the application for a primary

liquor licence for Cue Connections.

Hon. G. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I seek leave to table two

documents.

Leave granted.

Tabling Documents

Hon. G. Abbott: In accordance with

section 14 of the Budget

Transparency and Accountability Act, I'm tabling two major capital project plans

for the recently announced Kelowna General Hospital and Vernon Jubilee Hospital

expansions and the Royal Jubilee Hospital expansion in Victoria.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply —

in this chamber continued estimates of the Office of the Premier and in

Committee A continued estimates debate for the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); S. Hawkins in the

chair.

The committee met at 10:05 a.m.

On Vote 10: Office of the Premier, $13,771,000 (continued).

Hon. G. Campbell: If I may, I'd just like to clarify an

answer that I gave yesterday to ensure full accuracy. The Leader of the

Opposition asked whether the government will look at measures to ensure that PIN

e-mails are backed up on the server, and I responded that they currently are.

In fact, what I have been now informed is that we have taken steps

to upgrade our technology so the server can back up PIN e-mails. This is

scheduled to begin shortly. I don't want to leave the impression that it has

been ongoing. It was a technology upgrade that was required. I had understood

that it was in place. It is not in place yet, but it will be shortly.

C. James: If I can then ask a clarification question on the

PIN. As the Premier pointed out, we had the same information, which was that

PINs aren't currently backed up on the system. The Premier said "shortly." Could

he give any kind of time indication of when that will occur? Will he ensure that

people are aware of that?

Hon. G. Campbell: There are regularly scheduled refreshers

for the entire system. This is scheduled for the next date when that will take

place. I can't say today what that date is. When I discover that, I will ensure

that the Leader of the Opposition knows. I'm sure the public service will be

informed as well through the normal channels.

C. James: I appreciate that and will do a follow-up on

that.

I just thought I'd begin by summarizing a little bit of our

discussion yesterday and then move into discussions around the Premier's staff

as we left off yesterday.

When we take a look at what we learned yesterday in our

discussions, we learned that there may or may not be a fall session depending on

the Premier's decision. I'm disappointed. I had expected that when a fixed

calendar was put in place, as the Premier himself had said, it would take

politics out of decisions of the Legislature and it would determine that the

people's business would be done. But apparently that's not so. Apparently, the

Premier, as we found out yesterday, will decide himself whether we want a fall

session or not and whether it fits his political determination. So I think

that's very disappointing.

We also learned yesterday that the government may or may not

disclose documents required for the Basi-Virk trial. Again, confidentiality may

still apply, and that's a concern, I think, to all British Columbians.

We also heard yesterday that the Premier wouldn't commit that

either he or cabinet ministers or former cabinet ministers would testify if

called to Basi-Virk and that he would give them that direction to testify. I

think, again, that's a great disappointment to British Columbians who really

expected that we'd hear something clear.

We heard clarification from the Premier today around the PIN

numbers. I would hope that we'll also hear clarification from the Premier around

private e-mails because, as he acknowledged yesterday, government officials may

use, from time to time, private e-mails to do government business. In the same

way that PINs are not accessible, private e-mails are not accessible. I

[ Page 8282 ]

certainly would hope that we'll hear the same kind of concern from the

Premier about private e-mails that we heard around the clarification of PINs

today.

[1010]

Then the final piece we learned yesterday was that…. With all the

questions we've been hearing around allegations of dirty tricks out of the

Premier's office, we heard from the Premier that he isn't able to tell us what

portion of his budget, either staff or resources, is used for media monitoring.

He doesn't know. He doesn't have that breakout done. He said that if we are

interested in that, it's our job to try and determine it.

Again, I think it's incredible, when you look at the questions

that have been raised, that we aren't able to get that kind of information from

the Premier. But it just shows, as I said yesterday in my opening remarks, the

kind of stonewalling that we've seen from this Premier and from this government

over the last number of months. I sincerely hoped that the estimates process

would be an opportunity to be able to get answers, but apparently not.

I'd like to move now into the work of Ms. McDonald. We know that

Ms. McDonald recently contracted with KPMG to review allegations that Paul

Taylor inappropriately directed lobbying work to Brian Kieran and his company

Pilothouse, which is a firm that's closely connected to the allegations around

B.C. Rail bribery and fraud charges.

On April 19 we heard the Times Colonist report that the

KPMG report will be finished in about a month. So my question to the Premier is:

why is that report late?

Hon. G. Campbell: I have no idea where the Times

Colonist was getting their information from. I can tell the Leader of the

Opposition that the report is not, in her words or in the Times Colonist 's

words, late.

The Deputy Minister to the Premier established that an independent

review would be undertaken, that it would be thorough and that upon its

completion, it would be made available to the public in full.

I can't say where the Times Colonist 's information came

from. I can say that at the end of March, this engagement with KPMG was begun.

They are carrying out their report, as we have let the House know in the weeks

gone by.

C. James: Can the Premier tell this House when they expect

the report? And if the report is going to be due, will he table it this week

before the House rises?

[1015]

Hon. G. Campbell: When KPMG is satisfied that they have

completed the due diligence that was required under the report, it will be

submitted to my deputy minister. My deputy minister will then put it through a

freedom-of-information review. When that review is complete, the report will be

made fully available to the opposition and to the public for their

consideration.

I do not believe that the report will be complete — and certainly

an FOI review would not be complete — before the end of this week, but it will

be done as soon as KPMG says that they are satisfied with their report and

submit the completed report to the deputy minister.

C. James: Just for clarification, has KPMG submitted the

report for review to the deputy?

Hon. G. Campbell: KPMG has not finished its review at this

time. When they have finished the review and submitted their final report, the

deputy will take that report, put it through the normal freedom-of-information

and protection-of-privacy commission process, and then it will be made public.

C. James: Has the deputy seen a draft of that report?

Hon. G. Campbell: There is no draft report. The review is

not complete. Obviously, if there's no draft report, my deputy minister has not

had an opportunity to see a report that doesn't exist.

C. James: Just to ask for further clarification. Have any

verbal updates on the report been received by the deputy?

[1020]

Hon. G. Campbell: My deputy minister has had the chance to

meet with representatives of KPMG to discuss process updates to make sure

progress has been made. There is no final report that has been concluded or a

draft report that has been written. When that final report is written, it will

be submitted to the deputy minister and, subject to FOI, will be submitted to

the opposition and members of the public.

C. James: Just to clarify again. Updates have been given or

meetings have occurred with the deputy and KPMG around the review. Is there any

e-mail correspondence that has gone back and forth on updates on how the review

is going? If so, will the Premier agree to table those e-mails?

Hon. G. Campbell: All of the documentation with regard to

this review will be made available upon completion of the review and subject to

FOI.

C. James: How many meetings has the deputy had with KPMG

regarding this since she engaged them to do this investigation?

Hon. G. Campbell: I can't tell you the exact number of

times that the deputy minister has met with KPMG. All those meetings are

documented in her calendar. I know the opposition asks for the deputy minister's

calendar on a regular basis under FOI. All those meetings are clearly in the

calendar for activities, but I can't give an exact number of times today.

C. James: Will the Premier commit to bringing back that

information?

[1025]

[ Page 8283 ]

Hon. G. Campbell: Just to be sure the Leader of the

Opposition knows, all the documentation with regard to this review will be

released at the conclusion of the review.

I can confirm to the member that all meetings are being documented

as part of the review, and we won't be releasing additional information on the

review while the review is taking place. However, all those meetings are being

documented, and that will be fully part of the review that will be available to

the members opposite as well as to the public.

C. James: I didn't think there were new ways for this

government to continue to stonewall and avoid answering questions, but we see

another one. FOI — wait for the reports.

I would have thought that it would have been a very

straightforward question and a very straightforward six-week time period for the

deputy to take a look at her calendar and determine how many times she'd met

with KPMG during the time she had taken them on to do this investigation until

now. But apparently not.

I'll now ask a question of the Premier. I'll come back to the

deputy's handling of this entire issue, but I'd like to ask the Premier. He will

remember that he received a letter from the MLA for Yale-Lillooet back in

November regarding Paul Taylor, the former Deputy Minister of Finance and

current CEO of ICBC, directing work to Pilothouse and lobbyist Brian Kieran.

I'd like to ask the Premier what his first reaction was when he

saw Pilothouse mentioned in that letter from the MLA for Yale-Lillooet. He gave

a clear "no" response in that letter, so I'd like to ask him now: did he see any

red flags? Did he see any areas of concern?

Hon. G. Campbell: Mr. Lali sent a letter containing,

frankly, very little detail, which was extremely vague in nature. The issues

raised were looked into by my office to the extent that his limited information

allowed. We found that there were no issues of concern and responded

accordingly.

Unfortunately, if Mr. Lali had brought forward substantive

concerns at the time, we would have been able to….

The Chair: Premier, we don't use proper names.

[1030]

Hon. G. Campbell: Sorry.

If the member for Yale-Lillooet's letter, which was referred to

earlier by the Leader of the Opposition, had any substantive concerns, then we

could have followed them up. However, the letter was actually not even initially

received by our office. We were asked and received a copy from CHNL, a media

outlet in Kamloops. In fact, when Mr. Lali was asked for more information on the

radio, he said that he had none.

The specific allegations that we were able to look into, we did

look into. It had to do with whether or not as Deputy Minister of Finance any of

the contracts had been entered into with a Mr. Kieran. We looked at that. There

was no evidence of that. That's what the letter in response to the member for

Yale-Lillooet actually said.

C. James: Just so I'm clear, it appears that the Premier

did discuss with his deputy the concerns in the letter from the member for

Yale-Lillooet regarding Mr. Taylor's relationship with Pilothouse and Brian

Kieran. What I heard the Premier say is that those issues were discussed between

the Premier and his deputy. So my question to the Premier is: did the Premier,

Ms. McDonald or anyone else in his office take any action to determine the

nature of Mr. Taylor's relationship with Pilothouse and Brian Kieran following

the receipt of the letter from the member for Yale-Lillooet?

Hon. G. Campbell: First, to correct the member opposite, I

did not say that the Deputy Minister to the Premier had reviewed the letter.

That was not the case. The office did, through our normal correspondence branch.

In the course of developing a response to the letter, we made inquiries. The

letter specifically referred to the activities and whether or not the Ministry

of Finance had entered into a contract. The Minister of Finance saw no evidence

of any contracts.

In fact, I believe Mr. Taylor, who was at that point no longer

with the ministry, was asked if he was aware of any contracts. The answer was

no. It was actually not brought to the attention of my deputy minister.

However, the results of the review that we did led to the letter

that was received by the member for Yale-Lillooet. When asked if he had any

further information, his answer was no.

This is something that took place, I think, almost six months ago

now. We followed through, as we normally would, with a piece of correspondence

to ascertain the facts, and we then responded to the member for Yale-Lillooet.

My deputy minister did not have any contact with that particular exchange.

[1035]

C. James: Who did that investigation? The Premier said an

investigation was done. Mr. Taylor was talked to. The Finance Ministry was

talked to around contracts. Who in the Premier's office did that investigation?

Hon. G. Campbell: I think it's important to put this in the

proper context. We received a letter from the member for Yale-Lillooet. There

was virtually no detail in the letter. There were some vague questions in the

letter. The member for Yale-Lillooet was even asked if he had any specific

information to provide. His answer to the media was no.

It was a letter that was dealt with by the correspondence branch.

I can't say specifically who was responding to that specific letter. In

following up correspondence from my office, it's not unusual for the

correspondence branch to ascertain the facts and to reply. The facts that we

were able to ascertain through contacts with the Ministry of Finance, which also

checked with Mr. Taylor himself…. Mr. Taylor could not recall any contracts. The

letter reflects the effects of that.

[ Page 8284 ]

There was no investigation. There was a letter that we received,

and the letter was responded to on the basis of the facts that were available.

That is, I think, the appropriate way for us to deal with matters of that

nature. It is important to note that we get lots and lots of letters from

people, including, on occasion, MLAs. We do our best to ascertain the facts and

respond accordingly.

C. James: The correspondence branch did the phone call,

then, to Paul Taylor and the Finance Ministry and wrote the letter back,

according to the Premier. At that point, it appears that the Premier's office

didn't have any concerns regarding that correspondence.

My question to the Premier would be: can the Premier tell this

House how it moved from not being a concern in the Premier's office to the

Finance Minister standing up in the Legislature and advising this House that

this was a very serious situation?

[1040]

Hon. G. Campbell: Again, the Leader of the Opposition has

made a statement that's not correct, so I want to be clear about what took

place. The correspondence branch checked with the Ministry of Finance, which

checked with Paul Taylor. That's what I've said clearly twice now.

Secondly — let me be as open as I can about this — it was not the

MLA for Yale-Lillooet's letter, which was very vague, which he was unable to

expand upon, that led to the current KPMG review. Let me read the letter, hon.

Chair. The member for Yale-Lillooet wrote a letter saying:

"The lobbyists registry was set up by your government to

keep track of individuals, businesses, organizations in their dealings with the

Premier, members of cabinet, members, staff and senior officials in the B.C.

government. I have some questions related to the registry.

"Do you have any knowledge of senior officials in

the B.C. Liberal government directing any business to lobbyists?

(2) Specifically, do you have any information regarding Mr. Paul Taylor, Deputy

Minister of Finance, having directed work to Mr. Brian Kieran?

(3) Have you or

someone in the Premier's office done any inquiries about Paul Taylor directing

business to Mr. Brian Kieran?

"These are some of the questions that come to mind

regarding the lobbyists registry. I look forward to your reply and thank you in

advance."

I then replied on December 12. I received that letter from

the member for Yale-Lillooet, which was dated November 1, on November 20, as I

mentioned, after hearing about it on CHNL radio. The first copy I received was

from the radio station.

[1045]

My response was:

"Thank you for your letter of November 1. As you may be

aware, this letter was not received by my office until November 20, 2006. In

short, my answer to all of your questions is no. To my knowledge, the Ministry

of Finance has not directed any work to the individual in question. Nor, to my

knowledge, have inquiries into any such activities been made in the past, either

specifically or generally.

"You also reference questions concerning the

lobbyists registry. I recommend that if you have any concerns about the

application of the lobbyists registry, you direct those concerns to the

freedom-of-information commissioner, an independent officer of the Legislature.

I think the important thing to note is that the review

being undertaken now was initiated, in fact, by an e-mail that was forwarded to

government by Mr. Taylor himself. That e-mail was forwarded to government. It

was reviewed. The details of it were reviewed by my deputy minister. That review

was also in concert with the Public Service Agency.

It was then decided, out of an excess of caution, that it would be

appropriate to establish an independent review. That independent review is being

undertaken by KPMG today as a result of the e-mail that was received from Mr.

Taylor, which was drafted by a third party.

C. James: The Finance Minister informed this House that as

soon as the information was made available to the Premier and the Deputy

Minister to the Premier — I'm presuming that's the e-mail that the Premier is

referring to that came from Paul Taylor — Ms. McDonald immediately conducted the

review.

[B. Lekstrom in the chair.]

My question, then, to the Premier would be: what were the precise

steps that she took in initiating that review, and did she seek legal advice

regarding that course of action?

[1050]

Hon. G. Campbell: Again, to put this in context, when the

e-mail was received, my deputy minister initiated an initial review. She saw no

issues of concern. However, out of an excess of caution, she felt it would be

worthwhile to engage an independent third party to assist her in completing that

full and independent review. All documentation, all the steps that are taken and

the final report will be made available to the opposition as well as to the

public upon completion of the review.

C. James: Further questions, then, around that process. Did

the deputy minister check the lobbyist act and the registry, the standard of

conduct for public employees, and did she speak to Mr. Taylor?

Hon. G. Campbell: I think it's important to understand that

all of the information will be made available upon completion of the review, not

while it is underway. I have said on a number of occasions that this information

— the documentation, the steps that are taken, the review itself — will be made

available to the opposition, subject to the Freedom of Information and

Protection of Privacy Act, and it will be made available as soon as the review

is complete. I don't intend to discuss the review as it is ongoing.

C. James: The Premier can't hide behind this issue. This

isn't before the courts. This isn't a sub judice issue. This is a review started

in the Premier's office. This is

[ Page 8285 ]

estimates on the Premier's office. This is an opportunity for the Premier to

answer questions about what's going on in his office.

I find it incredible that the Premier would say he's not going to

answer any questions on a review that was started in his own office. It's

completely, completely unacceptable, and I will continue to ask the questions.

Let's take a look at what the Minister of Finance herself said in

this House. She said: "Whenever something like this happens, then the proper

procedures are followed." So can the Premier tell us, then: what are those

proper procedures?

[1055]

Hon. G. Campbell: The proper procedures are, I think, quite

straightforward. First, you ascertain the facts. We endeavoured to do that, and

the deputy minister did that. There is a consultation that takes place with

relevant individuals. In doing so, the steps that are taken are fully

documented. It is important to note that as they are fully documented, so are

the steps taken documented. In this case, out of an excess of caution, it was

decided that we would also be guided by the professional standards of KPMG.

All of the steps will be available to the opposition when this

review is completed. All of the steps will be available to the public. The full

report will be available to the public, subject to freedom-of-information and

protection-of-privacy review, and that is the correct procedure to take.

There is no question…. I hear, certainly, from the Leader of the

Opposition that she may question this, but we at this point are being guided by

the professional standards that are followed by KPMG to ensure that that

independent report is carried out.

We've had discussions about this in the House. I understand that

there may be people that think we shouldn't follow those professional standards.

This government believes it is best and, in fact, in the public interest to

follow those professional standards as we pursue the completion of this report.

C. James: I wish I could have faith in the government

actually releasing everything to the public, but I'm afraid their record speaks

for itself, which is that we won't see information.

It's important that these questions be asked because these lead to

why the review was engaged for KPMG by the deputy and what steps were taken

building up to that investigation. So my question to the Premier is: was the

deputy to the Premier concerned about maintaining the integrity of documents,

files and other information in anticipation of review coming up somewhere along

the line?

[1100]

Hon. G. Campbell: As I mentioned, all of the staff in the

Premier's office are trained in freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy

protocols. In fact, they're all trained in terms of document management.

The Deputy Minister to the Premier is obviously concerned about

the integrity of the public service, integrity of the documents and integrity of

the processes that are undertaken in the public service. I can assure the member

opposite that KPMG are concerned about the integrity of those processes as well.

One of the things that I think is important about getting the

report in its final form…. It reflects and in fact respects the integrity and

the professional ethics of KPMG in carrying out this review.

I also think it's important for the Leader of the Opposition to

understand that the senior public servants that we have in this province are

concerned, first and foremost, with the integrity of the public and integrity of

the processes which they are charged with.

I think this is a case where that integrity is going to be

maintained as we conclude this review by my deputy minister. When that review is

concluded, the steps taken, the documentation, the activities underway will all

be made available to the opposition and the public subject to the Freedom of

Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

C. James: If the deputy began a review, she may have

anticipated and must have anticipated that something might come up, or she

wouldn't have started the review. You would expect that she would have taken

steps to make sure that documents would have been preserved and otherwise, just

in case a review came forward.

My question to the Premier is: did the deputy review Ministry of

Finance records regarding contact with Pilothouse on behalf of the New Car

Dealers?

Hon. G. Campbell: Hon. Chair, I'm not quite sure what the

opposition leader is implying. There is no reason to question the integrity of

the public service in British Columbia regarding document management or,

frankly, to question their integrity on any issues.

[1105]

As I've said, all the steps that were undertaken will be part of

this review and will be made available upon completion of this review. That is

the appropriate way for us to act.

We have asked for an independent review to take place under the

auspices of KPMG. When you ask for an independent review to take place, you are

accepting the fact that you will be subjected to the ethical and professional

standards of the reviewer — in this case, KPMG. They have full and unfettered

access to all documents.

All of the public service is trained in the management of

documents and assuring the documents are available. Upon seeing the review, if

the leader has a complaint to make with the freedom-of-information and

protection-of-privacy commissioner or someone else, then she would be in a

position to make that complaint.

It is important for us to get all the information and all the

facts. They will be made available. They will be made available to the

opposition and to the public, subject to freedom-of-information and

protection-of-privacy legislation, upon completion of the review that is

currently underway. That seems to me to be the way to properly process the

information that is before us.

[ Page 8286 ]

As I've mentioned before, a third-party e-mail was submitted to

ICBC. Mr. Taylor himself submitted that e-mail to my deputy minister, who

carried out the review that I've mentioned and that we've talked about over the

last little while. As that review was taking place, all appropriate steps were

taken to protect the public interest.

C. James: Again, it's important that these questions be

asked, because this government's record is anything but stellar on making sure

that they release information — all the information — to the public.

Did Ms. McDonald ever provide a report on her initial

investigation that led to the KPMG being engaged in this review?

Hon. G. Campbell: Let me say this again. My deputy

minister's review is currently underway. It is underway with the assistance of

KPMG. The initial review led, out of an excess of caution, my deputy minister to

say that she felt it would be best for us to bring in an independent third party

to review all the documentation and go down any paths that they decided were

appropriate to come to a conclusion and write a report.

The report is not written yet. When the report is written and

submitted, the report will be subject to freedom-of-information and

protection-of-privacy legislation. It will then be made available to the public

and to the opposition. All documentation will be made available, and all the

process steps will be part of that final report.

C. James: Just to clarify my question again for the

Premier: what did Ms. McDonald give to KPMG? Did she not prepare a report? Did

she give them a blank slate and say: "Come in"? I think it's a reasonable

question to ask. What documentation was given and what report was given by Ms.

McDonald to KPMG when they were engaged to do this review?

[1110]

Hon. G. Campbell: As I've mentioned on a number of

occasions this morning, I'm not going to report on the review while the review

is underway. However, I will say again that all documentation regarding the full

review will be made available when the review is complete. All the processes

that were undertaken will be made available when the review is complete.

I understand the Leader of the Opposition is wanting me to discuss

the review while it's underway. I won't do that.

We have said to KPMG that we expect an independent review. We are

meeting the guidelines that are required to assure that review can take place.

When that review is complete, when that report is written, it will be submitted.

It will be subject to Freedom of Information and Protection of

Privacy, and the opposition and the public will get all the information that is

contained in that report, subject to freedom-of-information and

protection-of-privacy legislation.

D. Jarvis: Could I have permission to make an introduction,

please?

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

D. Jarvis: I have today up in the galleries 48 students

from Blueridge Elementary School in North Vancouver–Seymour under the auspices

of their teacher, Mrs. Harivel. I wish that everyone would make them welcome.

Debate Continued

The Chair: I do want to remind the Leader of the Opposition

on the repetitious nature of some of the questions. I would just encourage the

Leader of the Opposition. I'll recognize the Leader of the Opposition at this

time.

C. James: Thank you, hon. Chair. It would be nice if we got

answers back on the questions, which is part of the reason that the questions

have to be asked again. But with respect to the Chair, I'll continue on.

The Premier said that this review was independent and being done

by KPMG, but in the previous question he said that the review was being

undertaken by his deputy with the assistance of KPMG. Perhaps the Premier could

clarify that.

[1115]

Hon. G. Campbell: As I've mentioned before, my deputy

minister received a copy of a third-party e-mail. Upon her initial review and

out of an excess of caution, she felt it would be best to bring in a third party

to conduct an independent assessment of the issues arising in the e-mail.

[S. Hawkins in the chair.]

When she receives the results of the independent review, I

anticipate that the steps of her review will be complete as well. When the

results of that independent review are submitted, that review will be subject to

Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy and available to the public

according to that legislation.

C. James: It seems to get more confusing rather than

clearer, so I'll try again. If I follow the steps correctly, according to the

Premier, the deputy to the Premier did a quick review, didn't see anything wrong

and decided out of an abundance of caution that she would contract with KPMG to

do an independent review, as the Premier calls it.

That independent review will then report back and provide

information to the deputy to the Premier, who then will close off that review

herself and provide that information — to whom?

[1120]

[ Page 8287 ]

Hon. G. Campbell: Hon. Chair, I'm not sure where the

confusion lies with the opposition. I've tried to lay out the course of action

that has been undertaken. The KPMG report when completed will be made public and

made available subject to freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy

legislation. I anticipate that upon receipt of the KPMG report the steps my

deputy minister has and will take will also be complete.

However, the current step is to await receipt of the report that

she's requested from KPMG. I think that no one has ever suggested that that

report was not requested by the deputy minister, and certainly, no one should be

suggesting that my deputy minister will do anything except make that entire

report available, all documentation available. All steps taken in this matter

will be made available to the public.

KPMG, as I've mentioned, will be outlining all of those things in

the report that will be finalized. When it's finalized, it will come to the

opposition and members of the public subject to freedom-of-information and

protection-of-privacy legislation.

The Chair: Members, the Chair has heard the answer numerous

times, and I would again remind the member about repetition and ask the member

to move on to another line of questioning.

C. James: Thank you, hon. Chair. I'm continuing on with the

review. It's important that we take a look at the terms of reference and the

instructions given to KPMG for this review in order for the public to have any

kind of confidence that KPMG is looking at all of the issues that need to be

looked at.

It's pretty clear that unless we know what those terms of

reference were and what instructions were given to KPMG, the public won't know

whether KPMG is going to look at everything. So my question to the Premier would

be: will he table the terms of reference? What instructions did his deputy give

to KPMG to do this review?

[1125]

Hon. G. Campbell: The question that the opposition leader

is raising now has been canvassed during question period in the House, and it's

been canvassed today. I think that it's important to note, as we have said

before, that the full review, the terms of reference, the documentation, the

process undertaken, the steps taken and the full report itself will be made

available upon completion of the review.

That is the appropriate way to carry out this activity, and that's

how the government intends to follow through with it. The opposition leader

knows that. We have been very clear that that's how we intend to carry this

process out to its rightful conclusion.

C. James: It's clear that the Premier refuses to release

the terms of reference and any information that may assist the public in

understanding whether this is a true investigation or not. I think the answer is

pretty clear. After the Premier's performance this morning, it's very clear that

the Premier doesn't want the public to know what's going on in this

investigation.

My question to the Premier would be: does KPMG have access to all

documents, all relevant government records, Mr. Taylor's files, his meeting

schedules and Pilothouse documents as well?

Hon. G. Campbell: I actually answered that question earlier

this morning, but I want to say it again so the Leader of the Opposition can

hear it. There is full and unfettered access to all government documents with

regard to this review that KPMG is undertaking.

[1130]

The Chair: Members, I again remind the member about

repetition. The Chair does remember some of this being asked.

C. James: Does KPMG have investigative powers to review and

retrieve evidence? Often those powers have to be given through a review. Does

KPMG have that power?

Hon. G. Campbell: As I have mentioned before this morning,

this is a government review. Government has placed no restrictions on KPMG in

the undertaking of that review.

C. James: Just to sum up what we've heard from the Premier.

Just so that we're clear, we've heard that KPMG has been contracted by the

deputy to the Premier to do a review, to undertake a review on an issue that the

deputy to the Premier said was not of concern. Out of an abundance of caution

they decided to do this review, but she'd already made a ruling that it wasn't

an issue or wasn't a concern.

They may or may not have investigative powers, because the Premier

hasn't been clear on that. So we're not really sure whether KPMG has

investigative powers to look into either Pilothouse or Mr. Taylor.

We also know that the deputy to the Premier let Mr. Taylor know

that he was part of this investigation. Based on this, I'd like to ask the

Premier: does he think that this really is an independent investigation and

review of this entire issue?

[1135]

Hon. G. Campbell: My answer to the member opposite is yes,

I am confident about the independence of this review. KPMG is a professional,

accredited body. In fact, they are audited themselves for the work that they do.

They have taken on this task. They have unfettered access to government

documentation. They will write a report that they believe meets the challenges

or answers the questions that may be raised.

That report will be made available. The terms of reference for the

report will be made available. All documentation will be made available. All the

process steps will be made available. The report will be subject to

freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy legislation. It will be given,

subject to that, to the opposition and to members of the public.

[ Page 8288 ]

I'm not sure what the leader is implying here. I believe that KPMG

has an exceptional reputation. I also believe that members of the public service

are acting in the public interest as we pursue this information and as this

review takes place.

C. James: Just to look at another issue regarding Paul

Taylor. Is the current relationship between Paul Taylor and the New Car Dealers

part of the KPMG review?

Hon. G. Campbell: Maybe we should just back up one step

here. All of the issues arising from the e-mail are a subject of the review that

is underway. The full terms of reference, the documentation and the processes

that are taken will be part of the final report which is brought forward by

KPMG. That report will be subjected to freedom-of-information and

protection-of-privacy legislation review and then will be made available to the

opposition and members of the public.

C. James: The Premier has outlined exactly the difficulty

here, which is that the public doesn't know the terms of reference. The public

has no idea what the terms of reference are for KPMG. They have no idea what the

Premier has them looking at, what the deputy to the Premier has them looking at,

what issues are part of that investigation.

It's no wonder there are all kinds of questions being asked by the

public, by the press and by others about this review, about some of the dealings

that have been going on and some very serious allegations that have been raised.

Part of the reason for asking those questions is to try and find

out if that's part of the investigation — not after the fact, but in fact during

the review, so we can make sure that these issues are part of the review.

We know that the New Car Dealers, with the assistance of Jamie

Elmhirst, launched a lobbying campaign to change vicarious liability to the

benefit of the car dealers and potential massive costs to ICBC and the health

care system. The New Car Dealers, as we also know, are one of the B.C. Liberal

Party's largest contributors, giving $320,000 in 2002 and $150,000 in 2005.

So my question to the Premier is: did Paul Taylor, CEO of ICBC and

former president of the New Car Dealers, have any role in these legislative

changes?

[1140]

Hon. G. Campbell: Again, I will say that KPMG has full

latitude to pursue any issues that arise out of the e-mail. I can't tell you

what all their undertakings are at this point or what they're pursuing at this

point. I will be able to do that, at the same time as the Leader of the

Opposition, when the KPMG report is finalized and made available to the

opposition and the public, subject to freedom-of-information and

protection-of-privacy legislation.

C. James: Since we don't know whether this is part of the

investigation of KPMG, and the Premier won't tell us whether this is part of the

investigation of KPMG, will the Premier agree to delay royal assent on Bill 35

until the KPMG report comes in?

The Chair: I remind the member that that is a question

directly dealing with legislation, and that is not part of the debate for

Committee of Supply.

C. James: I'll move on to talk about some other staffing

issues related to the Premier's office. As we know, the standards of conduct for

the public service apply to all in-council appointments as well as other public

service employees. It states: "The government of British Columbia believes the

highest standards of conduct among public service employees are essential to

maintain and enhance the public's trust and confidence in the public service."

Does the Premier agree that all employees in the Premier's office

should adhere to this policy?

[1145]

Hon. G. Campbell: Yes. In fact, all OIC appointees are

required to sign public service standards of conduct that include clear

expectations around their behaviour while employed, Further, they're bound by an

oath to keep government information confidential after employment.

C. James: Who in the Premier's office is responsible for

ensuring that this policy is maintained? And if the policy is violated, who in

the Premier's office is responsible for enforcing it?

[1150]

Hon. G. Campbell: I was looking for the specific sections

in the act, which I could refer to the Leader of the Opposition with regard to….

However, I don't have those.

I can say that in my office, all of the professional political

staff report ultimately to the chief of staff. All other employees in

government, including all the ministries, report through their deputy ministers.

Their deputy ministers obviously report to the deputy minister responsible for

the public service, the Deputy Minister to the Premier.

I should say at the outset, though, that I believe that public

servants do adhere to their oaths of office and their standards of conduct. We

think it's important, and I think people involved in the public service,

regardless of whether they are staff for the opposition or staff for government,

take those oaths seriously and their service to the public seriously.

C. James: When that individual, the chief of staff, who as

the Premier says is responsible for the political staff and for ensuring that

the oath of office is followed and the code of conduct is followed…. If that

person, the chief of staff, doesn't do their job in ensuring that that occurs,

who is ultimately responsible? Is it the Premier?

Hon. G. Campbell: First, just to clarify the last question.

OIC appointments under

section 12 in my office report to the Deputy Minister to

the Premier.

[ Page 8289 ]

OIC appointments under

section 15 report to Martyn Brown, and Martyn Brown is

accountable to me.

Noting the hour, I move the committee rise, report progress and

ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:55 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. G. Abbott moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this

afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

ABORIGINAL RELATIONS

AND RECONCILIATION

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); H. Bloy in the

chair.

The committee met at 10:07 a.m.

On Vote 11: ministry operations, $50,960,000 (continued).

S. Fraser: Prior to going along with the $50 million–plus,

we have a few questions today. If it's possible, there are a few local

questions, and I've got members, maybe from both sides of the House, who are

wanting to ask those. I thought we'd try to get some of those out of the way, as

far as the closer-on-the-ground stuff right now this morning and possibly going

into this afternoon. Then I will be finishing off with my line of questioning to

close off the day.

I'm going to leave the next sets of questions to the member for

North Island.

C. Trevena: I have a couple of areas of questions that I'd

like to explore with the minister, some of which I have asked about in question

period and through letters to the minister.

The first area I wanted to explore is the consultation over the

removal of lands from TFL 6, Western Forest Products lands, in the Kwakiutl

traditional territories. The band was first notified about the possible

withdrawal of these lands in August 2005. At that point, it was very much giving

notification from the Ministry of Forests. I realize this is the Ministry of

Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, but I wanted to explore the

consultation process.

The band was given notice in August 2005 that this was going to be

happening. At any stage, is the ministry responsible for being involved in the

consultation process, or is that all a matter of the Ministry of Forests?

Hon. M. de Jong: The obligation to consult obviously

accrues to the Crown in the right of the province of British Columbia in its

entirety, and I want to emphasize that up front. There is wide-ranging work

taking place around the refinement and establishment of consultation protocols,

and the First Nations Leadership Council plays an instrumental role in that.

There is a working group that is focused entirely on that.

Generally, however, insofar as specific decisions relating to land

use and resource use, the individual department of government — the line

ministry, as they're frequently referred to — would have responsibility. That

was the case and has been the case with the Ministry of Forests.

[1010]

C. Trevena: Although this does rest with the Ministry of

Forests, I realize that the minister was also previously the Minister of Forests

and has seen a similar process run through on the west coast. I just wanted to

talk a little bit about the consultation process, because while it does rest

with the Minister of Forests, the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and

Reconciliation is obviously very conscious of ensuring that there is good

communication between his government and the bands.

In October 2005 the band wrote to the Minister of Forests, saying

that they had learned about the possible removal of the lands and were

concerned. They wanted to make sure that some of the lands were not removed, and

they were looking forward to an initial meeting in order to lay the groundwork

for the new relationship. That's a quote from the letter from then Chief

Councillor Marion Wright.

How long would the minister expect it to take, from a response

from the band to a government department, for talks to actually take place?

Hon. M. de Jong: Obviously, all representatives of the

Crown — all ministries and the government itself — take the obligations that

exist very seriously. The dialogue that takes place is viewed as an important

component of the Crown's responsibility and the Crown's ability to manage the

land base.

There are individualized circumstances that relate to individual

transactions or proposed transactions, but in all cases the willingness and the

desire to engage with first nations in whose traditional territories

resource-related activities are taking place…. Those obligations are taken very

seriously.

[ Page 8290 ]

C. Trevena: So this could take a matter of weeks, months or

years. There is no necessary time prescribed for how long it's going to take to

get from a position of potential disagreement or uncertainty through to a

resolution. The government would not be putting a specific time frame on this.

Hon. M. de Jong: That is so. At the same time, however, we

do assign a level of import to carrying out these discussions in a timely way.

We think that is fair and appropriate for the first nation, for third-party

proponents who have an interest in the land use planning. We think it is also

consistent with what the courts had in mind.

The challenge, of course, is balancing the idea of timeliness with

thoroughness, recognizing the fact that, as the courts have said in past

decisions, consultation does not equate with a veto. Sometimes at the end of the

consultative process it is a bit of a stretch to suggest that a genuine

consensus has been arrived at, although we strive for consensus.

All of those factors are at play, and it does create a tension

between the desire to move ahead in a timely way but also to recognize that the

consultation has to be genuine, bona fide and in good faith. Sometimes that

takes longer than in other instances.

[1015]

C. Trevena: I'm very pleased that you say that the

consultation has to be genuine, bona fide and in good faith, because I think the

minister is aware that I'm very concerned that the consultation in regards to

the withdrawal of the lands from TFL 6 in Kwakiutl traditional territories was

none of those things.

The Kwagiulth did get legal advice. They got a legal opinion when

this all started at the end of 2005, the beginning of 2006. At that point it was

suggested to them that they should be very concerned about Western's attempt to

designate its private lands as managed forest lands.

The potential impacts to the Kwakiutl traditional territory should

trigger the Crown's duty to consult and accommodate in regard to their treaty

rights. In fact, the Ministry of Forests did assure then Chief Councillor Marion

Wright.

"I assure you that the province is committed to fulfilling

its legal obligations to consult with first nations and that the ministry is

extending the consultation process with potentially affected first nations

regarding deletion of the Crown land. Staff would also consult regarding the

impact this may have on your treaty right, with an emphasis on a deeper level of

consultation."

I would like to ask the minister what a deeper level of

consultation is and what level of consultation he would deem appropriate on an

issue that the first nation has raised as a concern for several months and has

been advised legally that there are going to be serious concerns about. I would

like to ask the minister: what level of consultation would be bona fide, genuine

and in good faith in this instance?

Hon. M. de Jong: I appreciate the question, but I'm not in

a position, either in the abstract or in the case that the member has a genuine

interest in, to lay out a formula that can be applied across the board. I think

a great deal of work has taken place and continues to take place in trying to

develop a model that could be applied. But the complexities of that are such

that I would not be doing service to that ongoing work involving the First

Nations Leadership Council by suggesting here in the span of 30 or 40 seconds

what I think appropriate levels of consultation are.

It will depend on a variety of circumstances: the nature of the

activity being proposed, the strength of the claim — some very individualized

and specific circumstances. I find myself at a disadvantage, though I appreciate

the member's interest in the matter generally and in this specific case.

C. Trevena: The minister talks about in the abstract and in

the particular. I know that the minister, as Minister of Forests and Range

himself, had a similar case and also had a similar issue of consultation. What

I'm getting to — and I think the minister is aware — is that what we have here….

I have in front of me a series of letters back and forth between the ministry,

the government, the Crown and the first nations, which resulted, over a year

after notification first came, in one meeting. At the end of that one meeting

the decision was made.

I'm wanting to ask the minister whether a series of letters back

and forth, through which — and I'm very happy to work through them with the

minister — we're seeing a conversation about the need for consultation, about

the need perhaps for financial assistance so that the first nation involved, the

Kwakiutl band, can both do the research and ensure that it has the adequate

capacity to deal with any consultation….

We have this going back and forth, and we have one meeting, and

then after that the deal is signed off. The land is now out of the TFL, and the

Crown has effectively said to the first nation: "Sorry, guys. This is it. It's

handed out."

On this very specific one, I would like to know from the minister

whether a series of letters over a year and one meeting does represent adequate

consultation.

[1020]

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm afraid the member has me at a slight

disadvantage. I am not able, off the top of my head, to relate the specifics of

the discussion, dialogue, consultation which took place in terms of either the

correspondence or the meetings and/or the phone calls that may have taken place.

I can say, however — and this does draw on my experience in a

former capacity with the Ministry of Forests — that my lasting impression is

that the officials within the Forests Ministry take very seriously the legal

obligations that exist as they relate to the obligation to consult and

accommodate.

It was the seriousness with which they took those obligations that

has prompted them to sign over a hundred agreements, which include

revenue-sharing, resource allocation and, not insignificantly, specific

consultation protocols. The member has correctly

[ Page 8291 ]

pointed out a previous example where there was judicial intervention and a

judicial pronouncement. But the minister then, the minister now and the

officials within that ministry do everything they can to ensure that the legal

obligations, as they understand them to be, are being discharged.

In fact, they go further. At the heart of the new relationship is

the desire to ensure that we are working together to develop economic potential

and economic opportunity and to ensure that there are clear lines of

communication. All of that is very much at the heart of the new relationship and

some of the other initiatives that are being developed.

I think the member was across the road at the longhouse a week or

two ago when we signed a pilot agreement relating to one-window or one-stop

referral. She may not have been, but that too was a very positive example of a

significant step forward in trying to coordinate the consultation process.

The member knows — I think she does; she is thoughtful about these

matters — that one of the great challenges that a lot of first nations are

facing is the sheer volume of referrals that they are encountering. Government

in its own way faces capacity issues, but people are understandably less

sympathetic of the challenges facing big government.

First nations are encountering some difficulty and some challenge

as it relates to dealing with those referrals, not just from forestry but from a

broad range of sectors — whether it's tourism, other resource-related matters or

land use planning processes.

The pilot agreement that was signed with the mid-Island in the

Comox area was designed to bring some structure to that in a way that would

allow a type of rating of what some of these referrals are — which ones require

more attention, which ones are of more relevance or more importance to the first

nations — and to try and coordinate that in a way that eliminates some of the

duplication.

We are still, I think it's fair to say, in the early stages of

working through, of operationalizing the obligations that we now know are there

and that the courts have assisted all of us in defining and bringing some

structure to. But it would be incorrect of me to suggest that all of the

uncertainty or all of the bugs have been worked out in terms of seeing this

through.

[1025]

At the end of the day, of course, as I said earlier, there always

does remain the possibility that no amount of discussion, dialogue or

consultation would eliminate a fundamental difference of opinion that could

exist. In those cases, the provincial government of the day is confronted by the

need to make a decision that one hopes would enjoy a broad range of support from

all parties, including affected first nations. But on occasion, that may not

necessarily be the case.

C. Trevena: The minister has touched on a couple of issues.

The issue of capacity is something that I would be very happy to talk about for

some time. I don't think we can use up the whole of the estimates period through

this.

I'm sure that the minister, like myself, has sat in many band

offices where you can see the pile of referrals that come through from various

ministries. The first nations themselves are looking and wondering how they're

supposed to be dealing with all of these. So any assistance in providing those

first nations with the capacity to deal with their referrals so that their

aboriginal rights and titles are not infringed is a duty that we all need to

recognize.

I notice that in a letter to the Kwakiutl band in May, there is a

reference — because the band did say that they were very concerned about this

and may not have the capacity to deal with it — that any assistance for capacity

should be dealt with through the new relationship trust.

My initial question for the minister on this: is this the way that

the bands are supposed to be dealing with this? Then I have subsequent questions

from the minister's previous answer.

Hon. M. de Jong: It's one way. It goes to the heart of why

the new relationship trust of $100 million was set up. I'm not sure in this case

whether the first nation we are discussing has made application to the trust.

But at the heart of the trust…. I hope and believe the member does understand

that the trust was set up as a way to set aside a significant sum of money, $100

million, at arm's length from government, for which first nations themselves

would exercise authority and jurisdiction.

I'm actually curious — and the member may be able to advise me,

because I know she works closely on this matter with the first nation — whether

they have made application to the new relationship trust.

C. Trevena: In this instance, I'm not sure whether the

first nation did, because the first nation felt very pressured on this.

I'd like to ask a couple of other questions on the issue because

the same letter from the Deputy Minister of Forests talks about the consultation

process. It says that the consultation process includes providing information on

the land removal and an opportunity to discuss how these decisions will impact

the treaty rights. There is an opportunity to discuss with Western Forest

Products staff the impact that the deletion of these lands may have on the

exercise of treaty rights, and the discussions will set the stage for further

consultation in the future regarding upcoming decisions on the Crown portion of

the TFL. Government will continue to fulfil its legal obligations for

consultation on these matters as they occur.

The minister talked in his previous answer about how courts have

assisted in defining what consultation is. We have a glaringly similar example

to this one, which occurred when the minister was the Minister of Forests and

Range, at which point the courts said that the Crown didn't exercise its

appropriate authority and that it was wrong. Yet in this, while we now have a

Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation who was the previous

Minister of Forests and Range, we see exactly the same process moving along.

[ Page 8292 ]

I'd like to ask the minister how we are reconciling the lessons

that we learned from the past with the actual activity that we are seeing today

on the Island.

[1030]

Hon. M. de Jong: We do learn. The decisions that have been

handed down in various judicial pronouncements — decisions — are helpful in that

respect.

Without in any way wanting to comment critically on court

decisions, I have found in the past that the bench is frequently more

comfortable talking about what is insufficient as opposed to what is sufficient.

Nonetheless, they are discharging their judicial duties in the way that they

believe is appropriate in government.

The departments of government, including the Ministry of Forests

and the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations, examine those decisions very

seriously. They are the subject of intense discussions at the working group that

exists between government and the First Nations Leadership Council. We take

those decisions very, very seriously, govern accordingly, conduct ourselves

accordingly and, where necessary, make the adjustments in process that the

decisions would seem to require.

Again, there is ample evidence in support of the proposition that

this government not only acknowledges the obligations to consult and to

accommodate in circumstances where that is appropriate but has acted on them and

has been at the forefront in partnership with the Leadership Council in

establishing procedures and models for ensuring that those obligations are

discharged.

I wish I could say that, in so doing, every single transaction has

met with a result that is hailed on all sides as a testament to the

effectiveness of those processes. That is not the case, and it likely will not

be the case because some of these are very difficult, complex issues and people

and groups have differing opinions on what the outcome should be. But that is

the joy of governing.

C. Trevena: I come back to the very fact that we have here

a very significant issue for a first nation in the North Island — traditional

land and their traditional territory. They were alerted to the potential that

they may lose the rights to this land in a letter from the Ministry of Forests

and a letter from Western Forest Products saying that these negotiations were

going on.

There was then a series of letters and e-mails through one year,

and then finally all parties managed to get together, managed to sit down for

one meeting. It was on October 4, 2006, in Port Hardy, so it's well over a year

since this was first raised.

There was one meeting, and after that meeting we got a

clarification letter to the Kwakiutl band from the Ministry of Forests,

explaining some queries to that, and that was the level of consultation. Of

that, everything else that the band heard was that the deal was done.

They found out officially in February, some five months after this

meeting, which they thought was the beginning of consultation. They heard in

February…. The Minister of Forests wrote and said: "This is it." When he was

further pressed, he said he couldn't reverse the decision.

I would like to go back to the fact that when we are dealing with

significant issues and we are learning the whole ways of negotiation and ways of

dealing with this new relationship…. I put to the minister that a series of

letters and one meeting — that the first nation is under the impression is going

to be the start of a series of meetings, in which they would get the response of

some points of clarification….

[1035]

I put to the minister that (1) this is not consultation and

(2) having learned the lessons from the court, the minister should have at least

intervened with his colleague the Minister of Forests and given him due warning

that this had happened in the past and had been, to put it mildly, problematic

for the government and that the government had been found to have abrogated its

responsibilities.

Hon. M. de Jong: I'll answer this in two parts, and I may

have some additional information for the member momentarily. I am advised, and I

am relying on advice insofar as I was not party to the discussions, that the

attempted consultation initially involved upwards of 23 first nations who were

contacted. Sixteen of those first nations chose not to respond to the letter

that the member, I think, referred to. Six of the first nations did.

The process, the time line around the process for consultation,

I'm advised, was extended at least once — possibly more, but at least once. I'm

advised that reasonable efforts were made to meet. The member has an opinion —

and I'm interested to hear it, of course — about what may have constituted

reasonable levels of consultation in this particular case. I again emphasize

that the government generally and this ministry in particular take very

seriously their legal duties on behalf of the Crown to consult and accommodate

and seek, in every instance, to discharge those duties appropriately.

I should also note that my recollection of the…. I am now

operating from memory relating to the decision that was ultimately made by the

ministry with respect to the lands in question. It was that access for first

nations — hunting and gathering rights — and access for cultural purposes were

to continue so that specific attention was turned to the ongoing rights of the

first nations involved.

C. Trevena: I'm very pleased that the minister has the

numbers of the different first nations consulted.

I'm dealing very much with the Kwakiutl First Nation here, who

have claimed rights over this territory. While there may have been some apparent

delays, we are down to the fact that we have had a series of letters, some which

may have got lost somewhere. As I say, I have a file which has some reference to

some letters that the bands say they didn't receive and that the ministry says

they sent. That was all clarified, but this all culminated in just the one

meeting and then just the discussion through e-mail from the Ministry of Forests

and Range which said that this is the way it is.

[1040]

[ Page 8293 ]

I would further like to ask the minister whether one meeting on

something that…. The minister is very well aware of how sensitive these issues

are at the moment for everyone in British Columbia. Everybody wants to make sure

that we do find a way for the new relationship to work but also that treaties

are resolved so that we and first nations can move forward. This is extremely

sensitive.

The fact that the Kwakiutl First Nation is left with just one

meeting and then a letter to clarify points of the meeting and then the final

letters from the ministry…. I would like to ask the minister how this can be

perceived by anyone as full consultation.

Hon. M. de Jong: Hon. Chair, apologies for the delay. I was

just trying to get some additional information about the contact and discussions

that took place.

I note that there was an initial letter. This is with the Kwakiutl

First Nation in August of '05. I'm not sure if the member referred to

correspondence prior to that time, but I have something dating back to August

'05.

[1045]

That letter was ultimately responded to in November of '05 from

the chief councillor; a subsequent letter on February 20, 2006, from the Deputy

Minister of Forests; a response to that on May 9, 2006; a subsequent letter to

the first nation on May 31st; and another letter in September '06.

There is certainly a record, on the surface, of contact, of

engagement. I note, as well, that when the decision ultimately was made, there

was recognition given that the first nation used the areas involved for

traditional purposes such as hunting, gathering, fishing. They were granted

access to the lands for those purposes.

I think the member and I are destined perhaps to have a difference

of opinion on whether or not the Crown has adequately discharged its

responsibilities, and so be it. Again, though, I point out that the Crown takes

very seriously those obligations and endeavours in every circumstance to ensure

that the responsibility and legal obligations have been properly and completely

discharged.

C. Trevena: I think that the minister has actually defined

it quite well. There was a process of engagement, the minister said, which I

think would differ in anybody's dictionary from a process of consultation. Yes,

the first nation was engaged. The first nation was aware that there was the

potential of this land being taken out of the TFL, that its traditional

territory might have a change.

Having access to lands for cultural use or for hunting, I would

believe, would be very different for a first nation than actually having its

aboriginal right and title respected. Having access to it is slightly different

than having it regarded as part of the first nation's traditional territory. I

would suggest that we are in a position where, as in the previous case, the

Crown has effectively extinguished the rights of this first nation.

I have written to the minister to ask for a meeting between the

minister and the elected chief councillor, who is now Verna Chartrand. The

elected chief councillor has also written to the Premier to ask for a meeting. I

would hope that the minister would agree to a meeting with the elected chief to

explain how this process of engagement has meant that the Kwakiutl's rights have

been extinguished.

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for conveying the

message. I should say on the record that I recall receiving her letter, I think

a week or week and a half ago, in which she raised the issue of a meeting. I try

to meet with as many leaders of first nations as is possible.

I'm looking forward, in the weeks and months ahead, to spending

time outside of this city and, in fact, moving up the coast and up the Island.

I'm hopeful, and I welcome the opportunity to sit down with the elected

leadership of the first nation and other first nations along the west coast of

British Columbia.

C. Trevena: I would hope that means that sometime this

summer we can sit down together with the elected chief of the Kwakiutl First

Nation and discuss this issue.

The Chair: Shall I…?

Interjection.

C. Trevena: Sorry, that was a question. I apologize, Mr.

Chair. It was just a clarification. I can hear the minister talking about, as we

all do, our hopes and desires for the few months when we're not in this House

and how we want to make sure that our meeting

schedule works. I would like to

work with the minister's staff to ensure that there is a meeting taking place in

Fort Rupert on this issue.

[1050]

The Chair: Thank you, Member. I won't call the question

quite yet. Minister?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm anxious that we do that work with a

view to accomplishing that end as well.

C. Trevena: I have one last question of the minister in

regard to consultation and accommodation before I hand the floor to my colleague

from Powell River–Sunshine Coast, who is going to take this issue on a little

further. This is quite an old issue, I believe, of consultation with the

Mowachaht-Muchalaht First Nation on the real west coast of British Columbia.

Recently a new aquaculture site was announced at Concepcion Point in Muchalat

Inlet, which is the traditional territory of the Mowachaht-Muchalaht First

Nation. In the announcement from the Minister of Agriculture there was a mention

that discussions had been held between the province and the Mowachaht-Muchalaht

First Nation before this went ahead.

I'm not sure whether the minister is aware of the difficulty that

that first nation has had with fish farms. In fact, they took the issue of fish

farms in their traditional territory to judicial review. When this latest one

was approved it came, apparently, because the first nation were unable to take

it to the next stage — basically,

[ Page 8294 ]

taking the Crown to court on this — because they didn't have the financial

capacity to do so.

Again, I would like to ask the minister: at what level does he

place meaningful negotiations with first nations? At what stage does he see that

there is no choice but for the Crown, through the government, to push ahead no

matter what?

Hon. M. de Jong: That will depend, obviously, on the

specific circumstances — the nature of the decision being considered, its

potential impact on traditional lands, the strength of the claim in that area. A

myriad of issues come into play and, again, the Crown seeks to balance all of

those considerations and discharge its duties as required under the law and the

constitution.

C. Trevena: My final question for the minister. So often we

see first nations either…. When they're dealing with potential impacts to their

traditional territories, they find that they don't have the capacity to deal

with it. If they do have the capacity, they can take it to a certain level in

the court process and then again it comes down to the fact that they don't have

the money or the strength to fight. It's very sad that in so many cases it comes

down to these things. One is that it becomes a fight; secondly, it has to be

settled through the courts; and thirdly, the first nations tend to lose because

they simply do not have the financial resources to take this on.

I would like to ask the minister whether there is a serious

approach that is trying to reconcile these problems before they get to the

court, so we don't come back year after year and ask these questions about first

nations who've lost their rights to a title because they haven't had the money

to fight them in court or because they've just been effectively bullied by the

authorities into accepting. I'd like to ask the minister whether he is going to

be addressing this.

Hon. M. de Jong: It's fair and appropriate for the member

to come to this committee and pose these questions and to highlight situations

in which she or others believe the obligation to consult has not been

discharged. I will try to provide answers that indicate, in defence, why the

Crown believes it has met its duties.

[1055]

I will, though, take just a short opportunity to highlight, in

support of the proposition that the Crown takes these duties very seriously, a

number of examples where that is very much the case. I start with the Tahltan,

start with the Taku River First Nation. I can talk at length about the central

coast land use plan, the north coast land use plan — not just one-offs but grand

examples of consultations involving a whole group, a whole range of stakeholders

but, most assuredly, first nations with varied interests, varied perspectives.

The Olympic legacies, the four host first nations in whose

traditional territory those events will take place — they're on board. They're

excited. It's all because of the level of consultation, the extent of the

consultation that has taken place. They feel part of it.

The member asks, I think sincerely: how can we be certain? What

can we do to ensure that we don't have conversations like this in the future? In

the near future I think we will. I don't want to pretend that the work that is

taking place now, the important work, is going to suddenly crystallize into the

nirvana of circumstances in which all of these issues disappear. It'd be nice,

but my guess is that next year we'll have some examples where there has been

frustration on the part of a party, and we'll talk about that.

The framework agreement, the working group with the Leadership

Council, is fundamentally important. It addresses the heart of the issue we have

been addressing here at this committee. How do we deal with this? How do we

establish some principles, some frameworks, some methodologies that everyone can

buy into as setting the standard? Everyone — first nations, government, third

parties.

We haven't talked about this a lot from the perspective of third

parties, who say: "We want to know." The member's colleague yesterday

highlighted some of the frustration from people like the business council whose

criticism is related — obviously, from a different perspective — but who also

want to know when enough consultation is enough.

Between the work with the Leadership Council, the working group,

the framework protocols that we're trying to establish, pilot projects like the

Nanwakolas that we signed in the Comox area….

Think of this. This is an initiative where — directly to the

member's point — the first nations involved have said: "We're going to come

together. We're going to pool our resources, and in the relationship between us

and government where that obligation to consult exists, we're going to have a

place that you send referrals to — a central depot, if you will. We're going to

start to prioritize them, we're going to start to sift through them, and we're

going to do that work."

A big step for the first nations involved because, in a sense,

they are vesting or delegating that organization some of their authority to say:

"You help us make these decisions." I think it's realistic. I think it's the

right way to go. I think it's a huge step forward.

Maybe this time next year we'll be able to undertake a little bit

of an analysis of how successful it's been. If it has been, hopefully there has

been some uptake elsewhere. I think there is interest elsewhere, certainly on

Vancouver Island. On the central Island and north Island, people are watching

very carefully to see if this is a model that can work and address some of those

challenges.

[1100]

For a small first nation with a relatively significant asserted

traditional territory, the volume of these referrals can be very daunting. They

can be very, very difficult.

So those are the kinds of initiatives that are underway — actual

working on the ground — in addition to the myriad of other agreements that are

in place and include specific consultation protocols. We're not by any means

there yet, but compared to where we were four, five, six or seven years ago,

boy, we're a long way further.

That, I think, is reflected in what we see happening on the land

base — the land use plans for the central

[ Page 8295 ]

and north coast being a prime example of that — and also in the activity and

the situations in which third parties are now approaching first nations, and

vice versa, directly and saying: "How do we work together? How do we confront

government together to say that this is what we want to do as partners?" Boy,

it's a remarkable scenario when government is now running to catch up and to

make sure that the policy structures are in place that allow those kinds of

partnerships to happen.

It's exciting. It's invigorating. It's at times challenging and

frustrating. But with the goodwill and all of this happening against the

backdrop of a genuine desire on the part of people to operate within the context

of a new relationship, we are seeing in a myriad of different ways just how

successful it can be. I for one — and I'm sure the member is — am very pleased

about that.

G. Coons: Thank you, Minister, for coming in with your

staff. I just have three or four areas of concern that I'd like to bring up. I

guess the first one is that under the format of the new relationship, we all

realize the optimism we have for Prince Rupert and the port development and

where we're heading in that region.

But as we look at the Tsimshian Nations, the Lax Kw'alaams and the

Metlakatla, they have strong thoughts that they haven't been accommodated or

consulted by the federal government for phase 1. I believe that phase 2 will

involve the ministry and the province as far as consultation and accommodation.

About a year ago I wrote to the Premier with concerns that the

government and the ministries involved should take a leadership role in helping

phase 1 come through. I'm just wondering, as far as phase 1 is concerned, if the

government has had any involvement in that at all, and do you think they should

have?

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for posing the

question about a project that he and the government assign great importance to

in terms of the province's overall economic strategy. It is a key component in

the overall Pacific gateway strategy.

[1105]

To the specifics of the member's question, let me say this. I have

recently had discussions with people like Gerald Wesley, chief negotiator for

the Tsimshian, and as a response to that have accepted an invitation to visit in

the area later this summer. I'm not sure if it's June or July, but we do have, I

believe, dates locked down. I want to take advantage of our time away from this

place to garner a better firsthand impression of some of the challenges that

people are encountering up there.

I do think that the member, though, correctly identifies one of

the roles that this ministry, and the government generally, takes very

seriously, and that is the liaison role we can play between first nations here

in British Columbia and federal officials.

Part of our interest there is to help federal officials understand

how it is that the new relationship is translated into a different way of

conducting business, a different way of interacting with one another, and to

convince the federal government that they now have — and forgive me if this

sounds impersonal — a tool at their disposal that they would not have enjoyed

earlier. That is the First Nations Leadership Council, which they should take

advantage of as a way to engage at the highest levels with first nations in B.C.

That, of course, does not alter the responsibility that goes with

dealing with individual first nations. But it is a way for the federal

government to emphasize in not just a symbolic way but a very substantive way

the importance they attach to the project and to fulfilling their obligations

towards first nations in support of the project.

I am looking forward to being in the area. Maybe I'll see the

member at his home later this summer. If I think of it, I'll make sure he's

aware of the dates that we plan to be in the area.

G. Coons: Thank you for that, Minister. I look forward to

that, because it's been well over a year. There are some feelings going on in

the community and the region, as this is a vital component of what's going to

happen in the northwest, right through the northwest corridor, and as the first

nations have said they're angry at the treatment by the port authority and the

federal government.

I believe that for quite a while now our government has had a

leadership role, a mediator role, especially under the new relationship, as we

try to get it out there and have people realize the purpose of it. So I look

forward to that. And I look forward to the province being involved in phase 2 of

the port and the consultations that are going to take

part in that.

The second thing I would like to ask some questions about is the

New Relationship Trust Corporation fund, the $100 million. I attended a couple

of sessions, one on the Charlottes and one in Prince Rupert, when they were

coming in and seeking consultation and, I guess, informing people of what the

trust was about.

I'm just wondering. One of the objectives for the trust was to

"increase the capacity of first nations to alleviate the adverse socioeconomic

conditions within first nations communities."

I realize that the minister and his staff know that despite the

good-news B.C. employment or unemployment rate…. In B.C. it's about 4 or 5

percent or around there, and on the North Coast–Nechako area it's double that,

at about 8.6.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

When we look at the first nations communities, especially in the

Skeena Native Development Society area…. They put out their latest report, where

the average unemployment rate in that region is 61.85 percent — just horrendous

unemployment figures for first nations communities.

In the Nass Valley and the four communities it's close to 60

percent, and in the Tsimshian Nation it's about 67 percent, and so on. On the

Charlottes, Haida Gwaii, it's 52 percent. But the key here in this whole

[ Page 8296 ]

region, the Skeena Native Development Society region, which put out this

report…. It's a horrifying 61.85-percent unemployment rate in first nations

villages.

[1110]

I'm just wondering. What is being done to alleviate the adverse

socioeconomic conditions, especially in response to the $100 million trust fund?

Hon. M. de Jong: Thank you to the member for the question.

I can assure him that at the heart of the work that is being undertaken, the new

relationship, is the objective of alleviating precisely the kind of disparate

conditions that the member has related to the committee. It is unacceptable. It

has always been unacceptable, but it is now time to do something about those

disparate economic indicators and those disparate social indicators around

education, mortality, health.

Sorry, I should say that I'll answer the question about the trust,

but I do want to assure the member that I view the trust as one part of an

overall approach to this that includes the transformative change accord and

included the Kelowna accord and the steps that have flowed from those meetings

in Kelowna — the accords around health care and education. But for the moment

I'll focus in on the trust.

As the member knows, $100 million provided to the board…. I do

want to emphasize this — and I think the member knows this — but the trust

operates arm's length from government. That was very key. Having provided the

allocation, the government is now…. Except for, I believe, the two appointments

that government makes, the board operates completely independently of

government.

The member happily was at some of the meetings where the initial

board began to receive some ideas and proposals. One of the things that I

remember talking to Nathan Matthew about somewhere in the midst of that

discussion…. His comment was something along the lines of, "It's a heck of a lot

easier to ask for $100 million than to decide how to spend it," and he's right

because it's a lot of money. It's a lot of resources. But, boy, the demands on

that money will far outstrip the available funds.

The first phase of the work has been completed, and we've been

advised that the trust plans to spend $20 million over the next three years: $6

million of that on capacity, $7.5 million on education, $5 million on culture

and language, $750,000 on youth and elder and $1.5 million on specific economic

development initiatives.

The trust, as the member knows, is governed by seven directors. I

have those names for him, if he wishes them. Beyond that, I would say there are

two dates of significance that one can look forward to. One is the issuance of

the first annual report due July 31 in which the board and chair will report out

in a formal sense.

Beyond that, there is another date. I'm not sure what it is, but I

know it has either happened or is imminent — and that is, the issuance of the

first cheque. Mr. Matthew alerted me, I think in February or March, that by

about this time of year, they wanted to be in a position where they were putting

that money to work in the way that it was designed to do.

I don't have information for the member on whether that first

cheque has yet been issued, but if it has not, the date of issuance is, I'm

assured, imminent.

G. Coons: Thank you for that, Minister. Yes, I've been

following along on the website, and I'll look forward to that. Just a comment.

In the meetings that I attended and the input that I had heard, there was a real

concern about urban first nations and what was happening in that area.

[1115]

Again, B.C. Stats indicates that the urban first nations

unemployment rate is significantly higher than we see in the good-news stories.

I hope that in forums like this we can get that point across and look at the

issues, also, with urban first nations.

The last couple of issues I would like to deal with are dealing

with some of the villages and concerns in the Nass Valley, especially with

Highway 16 having the slide. For quite a while the Nass Valley, with the one

road coming in by Lava Lake, which is the only way in and out of the Nass

Valley…. They've had concerns about their emergency preparedness, about having

another route.

Right now, the only route through there to get along Highway 16 to

Terrace or Prince Rupert is through Cranberry Junction, the logging road up

Highway 37. They've been trying to look at Cranberry Junction being designated

as an emergency route. In case the Lava Lake road to Terrace floods like it has,

they have an escape route out of the Nass Valley.

The situation that's just happening as we speak with the Cranberry

Junction road being used as an emergency route to the coast…. I would hope that

the ministry, in conjunction with the Transportation Ministry and other

ministries, would work with the Nisga'a and the Nass Valley concerns about the

emergency preparedness. That's just a comment, so you can comment on it.

The other, last thing I want to comment on is the status of the

villages in the Nass Valley under the Nisga'a treaty. With respect, the Nisga'a

villages…. Their status is equality to other B.C. municipalities. I don't have

the letter. I'm trying to get this letter. The Ministry of Economic Development

had accepted the Nisga'a villages as equal standing to municipalities.

I've talked to the Minister of Community Services, who indicated

they really didn't have the process or the documentation to look at the status

of the Nisga'a villages. I would hope that the minister, through his staff,

could clarify that and look at the status of the Nass villages as equal to the

municipalities. So if there are any comments on that…..

Hon. M. de Jong: To the member: first of all, I thank him

for relating the issues and concerns. Happily, they are in this case very

timely. I'm scheduled within the next ten days to sit down with President Leeson

and members of the Nisga'a government, and I am sure we will discuss these

issues and several others that I am aware of.

I've been on the Lava Lake road several times. I've actually been

on the Cranberry Junction road on a day

[ Page 8297 ]

when I decided the suspension in my vehicle deserved some punishment. It is,

firstly, a remarkably beautiful area, but the travel can be challenging.

Obviously, the Lava Lake road into Terrace has been significantly upgraded and

there is now road access out to Kincolith, which, when I started visiting the

area, there was not. So the infrastructure has developed.

[1120]

Like any other community, the folks in Nass Camp and Kincolith in

the Nass Valley and New Aiyansh will want to know they have reliable access in

and out of their community, but I'll pursue that with the government.

It's the first time I've heard about the issue around community

status, so I'll explore that as well. I know there is regional district

membership and participation. If there are issues that go beyond that….

I was at a UBCM meeting the other day and made the point that I

thought that organization should logically be looking at first nations as an

opportunity to expand their numbers. This is the new generation of community in

British Columbia, and there is, I think, an opportunity to breathe some new life

into the UBCM by taking advantage of the fact that these communities are out

there. So I'll pursue that as well.

I will lastly say that we are now at a point where it is possible

to look back on nearly ten years of experience under the Nisga'a treaty. The

member may have some views on this, but on balance, my impression is that it has

been an entirely positive experience. Not without challenges, and there will

always be those, but for the people of the Nisga'a, of the Nass Valley, they

continue to take great pride in the fact that they signed a treaty. They now

have a parliament up and running.

I believe the Nisga'a are playing host to this summer's meetings

of the First Nations Summit which is going to be there. I think that is

tremendous. You know, I say these things, recognizing that at the time of the

treaty I was a member of the opposition and took a position on the treaty and

criticized various aspects of it. But on balance over the past decade, I see

that it is an instrument that has worked very well, that I think British

Columbians can be proud of.

I'm hopeful that this time next year we may be in a position to

speak about several other first nations who are members of what at the moment

would be an exclusive club but over time we hope will be less exclusive — those

first nations with whom we do have modern treaties in British Columbia.

N. Simons: My first question relates to the Sliammon Nation

of Powell River and the traditional territory around there. What is the current

status in terms of the discussions over consultation and aquaculture?

Hon. M. de Jong: I want to tell the member that the

information I have readily at my disposal relates more particularly to the

treaty discussions that are taking place. I'm happy to engage in discussion with

him. I don't think that answers the specifics of his question, so he may need to

provide me with some time to obtain more specific information.

At this point, I'm probably left to advise him about the

seriousness with which the Crown takes its obligations, but I suspect that would

also not satisfy his specific interest in the present status of the matter.

[1125]

N. Simons: Fair enough. I didn't mean to be vague, but

there was a discussion about court action taking place with the Sliammon Nation,

upset about consultation process around the issuance of geoduck aquaculture

licences without adequate consultation. It was stated on the record on numerous

occasions that the consultation was inadequate. In fact, it was characterized in

various ways.

I'm just wondering if there is currently…. Maybe this will give

the minister the answer he might need: perhaps it is before the courts. Can the

minister tell us whether it's before the courts now or not?

Hon. M. de Jong: Off the top of my head, I thought a writ

had been filed, but we're just endeavouring to confirm that.

N. Simons: In that case, I'll move on to an area where we

might be able to get some…. There is a specific issue facing the people of the

Kingcome Inlet area, Gwa-yi and the road. I'm wondering if there's been any

discussion or anything to relate in a positive or negative vein with respect to

allowing the community members to access their community in a safe manner?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think it's a good-news story, so I thank

the member for raising it.

One of the first things I did when I received the assignment to

pursue ministerial duties in this department of government was to attend a

meeting of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs with the Premier. I'm not sure if the

member was at that meeting or not. I can't recall. He may have been.

The chief of the Tsawataineuk made the point that sort of

resonated with me, which was that for a good portion of the year this is a

community that doesn't have reliable access out of the community. It's

water-based, and we all saw this winter just how fraught with difficulty and, at

times, danger that can be.

I said to the member's colleague yesterday that I think it is

reasonable for us to be establishing as a clear objective the notion that

communities in B.C., first nations and otherwise, should have minimal levels of

infrastructure. Included in those minimal levels is the ability to get in and

out of their communities on a reliable basis. That doesn't mean airplanes and

helicopters because most people can't afford that.

[1130]

So we went to work on this. I'm not sure how up-to-date the member

is, but I can provide him with this update. The Department of Indian and

Northern Affairs…. We coordinated with them so we had the money to build a road.

An issue developed around access and which side of the inlet and

the Nature Trust was involved. I'm happy to advise the member that an

agreement-in-

[ Page 8298 ]

principle has been struck with the Nature Trust. There's a working group

involving the first nation, Canada and the province. Design work on the road is

being finalized. The rights-of-way will be finalized thereafter.

I suppose the only disappointment I have is that I had set as an

objective to have this road under construction this summer. I am told, most

recently a few moments ago, that because of some unique concerns, considerations

and logistical matters, they can't construct during the winter. So the objective

now is to have the design finalized this fall and to begin construction first

thing in the spring of '08.

N. Simons: That is good news for the community members who

lost family members, and I'm pleased to have the update. I thought maybe, in the

spirit of the minister telling us all the good things about the Nisga'a treaty,

I would actually bring up something that he could say a positive response to.

I'm not sure if we're even, but that's a good start.

Now if I can get back to the issue that my colleague from North

Coast….

C. Evans: They're paying you to argue with him, not to say

what a good guy he is.

N. Simons: I'm about to. I'm about to bring up other

issues.

The minister mentioned the importance, obviously, of addressing

some of the social concerns in first nations communities and that there were a

number of initiatives including something called the transformative change

accord, the Kelowna accord and the Tsawwassen accord. I'm wondering where the

Tsawwassen accord fits into that whole scheme of things and whether or not….

Maybe the minister could outline how he expects the

capacity-building and the enhancing of human resources capacity is going to be

completed or even attempted with what he has acknowledged as being insufficient

funds under the $100 million new relationship trust. If in fact their primary

goals are enhancement of community capacity to deal with such things as

referrals and not to rely on outside experts all the time, how is it that the

first nations communities across the province are going to benefit from $20

million a year over three years to achieve even part of that goal?

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for the question. I

believe that the member's question was not designed to represent a criticism of

the $100 million new relationship trust. It is correct, I think, to point to the

fact that that sum of money, as significant as it is, does not represent an

ultimate solution to all of the challenges that people face.

Nonetheless, I am hopeful that the member will at least accept the

proposition that we are better off with a $100 million new relationship trust

than we are without it. Yes, there are some difficult decisions that will have

to be made by the board of trustees about how to allocate that money: what part

of the capital to spend and what part to leave as an endowment for future

investments.

[1135]

However, I think the challenge goes beyond any specific amount of

money. We talked about this. I can't remember if the member was here earlier in

the day when we talked about this, but the combination of the work being

undertaken by the First Nations Leadership Council, the working group

specifically addressing the questions of consultation protocols and

accommodation models, is fundamentally important in trying to bring a sense of

structure and predictability to the discourse that now takes place regularly in

a variety of circumstances.

I think the member will agree that it is possible to think of

these issues in a variety of different ways. There are referrals that relate to

relatively mundane procedural matters that do not require anywhere near the

attention that a much larger proposal involving use of resources, allocations of

resources or access to land does. So part of the balance and the objective

behind what the working group is doing is to say: "How do we categorize these

things so that people — all of us with limited resources — can devote the

attention we need to in the right areas?"

Again, this is an approach that I referred to earlier with the

kinds of pilot agreements that we have seen to develop a process where people

can pool their resources — where referrals can come in, a group of first nations

can assign responsibility, delegate responsibility to an agency that they have

confidence in to categorize and process these things and in that way find some

efficiencies.

I am satisfied that if we believe that we can develop a system in

which a relatively small group — in some cases less than 200 people — is going

to be left to its own devices to manage referrals that in some cases can number

in the hundreds, then that is a recipe for failure. That will cause

consternation and frustration and, ultimately, delay our ability to realize the

objective that we all have, which is to develop this potential, develop this

economic capacity, marshal our collective resources, bridge the socioeconomic

gap and create in first nations communities the same sense of hope and promise

that all of us expect in all of our communities. Easier to say than do, but I

think we've begun down that path at least.

N. Simons: Well, I didn't see the relevance in the

minister's response to my question, but fair enough. He might not have seen the

relevance in my question, but I'm talking about social conditions that exist in

first nations communities right now that have not gotten better in the last six

years. I don't want the minister to presuppose what I think about anything,

because I can't presuppose what he thinks about anything, either, when you

listen to him waxing eloquently about the Nisga'a treaty.

What we need to be discussing is whether or not the $100 million

is actually just something to look at and say, "We're dealing with that with

$100 million"; meanwhile, back on the reserves and in the first nations

communities we're still dealing with the same kind of tragic social conditions

that are not going to be affected

[ Page 8299 ]

by throwing money at companies to do their own sort of inside referrals.

I think the laudable goal of increasing capacity and allowing the

first nations to have some sort of equality and collaborative process…. Right

now there is no collaboration, because it's unequal. Right now there is a sense

of dissatisfaction among the first nations that I speak to that has not been

reflected in the minister's comments.

There is extreme concern about what is being called the new

relationship. Some people are calling it the old abusive relationship, or a new

abusive relationship, and that's not right. If the minister doesn't recognize

that first nations across this province are worried, concerned about communities

turning against each other for the scarce resources that exist to provide them

with the necessary tools to negotiate, to deal with this government, then we

have a problem on our hands. The new relationship needs to be addressed. The new

relationship needs to be looked at closely to in fact determine whether or not

it's simply an old relationship under a new name.

[1140]

Madam Chair, it takes eight minutes to answer a question about a

road, nine minutes to answer a question about a geoduck application. Quite

frankly, I think that it's disappointing. It's disappointing that what we get is

a minister who takes his time to laugh about questions and talk among themselves

when there are questions about important issues of social concern in first

nations communities.

Unfortunately, because of the time factor I haven't been able to

get anything really going with the minister. I think that there's probably a

good reason for that. Unfortunately, I have to leave my questions at that and

cede the floor to the member opposite.

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm sorry that the member persists at

every occasion in trying to leave the impression that others don't take

seriously either the issues or the questions that he brings. If that is so at

times — and it is not, in this case — perhaps it is because of the manner in

which the member apparently feels compelled to wrap up his submission.

If the member wants to have a discussion about these issues, I am

more than willing to do so here or in the other chamber. Why…?

N. Simons: We haven't got the time to do this here.

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, the member now mutters about time,

and a moment ago he was chastising me for trying to answer questions as best I

can. It is very, very difficult with this member, Madam Chair, to understand

just what it is he is looking for. But I am going to take a little bit of time,

and if he thinks it's a waste of time, that's fine. That's for him to think.

I met with the leadership council.

Interjection.

Hon. M. de Jong: I met with the leadership council.

Apparently, the member does believe it's a waste of time. Nonetheless, I will

place my comments on the record.

The leadership council described the new relationship in this way.

They emphasized to me that their colleagues across the country, the chiefs in

Quebec and in the Maritimes, are now approaching their governments saying: "We

want you to emulate what is taking place in British Columbia." I don't say that

as a way to suggest that we've got it perfect, that all of the problems are

disappearing.

For the life of me, I don't understand why a member of the

Legislative Assembly who wants to be taken seriously…. Quite frankly, as time

goes by, this member puts himself in a position where very few of his colleagues

do take him seriously because of the type of commentary we just heard. People….

The Chair: Minister, not on the personal.

Hon. M. de Jong: What's instructive to me is to hear that

kind of observation from representatives on the First Nations Leadership Council

and to hear that they are being told across the country of the regard others

have for what is taking place here in British Columbia.

Apparently, that is not relevant to the member we just heard from.

I'm sorry that is so. I'm sorry he places so little import on and has so little

interest in what others are saying about what is taking place in British

Columbia.

He didn't, apparently, want to talk about some of the agreements

that have recently been signed. He professes to have an interest in things like

education. Well, we signed an agreement on education. We've signed an agreement

with first nations and the federal government.

I'm surprised that the member from Powell River chose not to talk

about how graduation rates are improving, about how unemployment rates are

improving.

[1145]

I suppose, if your purpose is simply to cast aspersions on the

intentions of others, you're really not that interested in the facts. You're

really not that interested in canvassing in detail what is taking place.

I guess the member didn't want to talk about the first nations

health plan which has led to the injection of an additional $15 million that

received enthusiastic support from first nations and is designed to address some

of those very disturbing social gaps that have plagued aboriginal communities

for so many decades, so many years. It seems disingenuous to me that the member

from Powell River would make the kinds of comments that he did and not want to

engage in a discussion or not want to acknowledge that very important step that

has been made.

The real progress, things like the devolution of off-reserve

housing stock to the aboriginal authority — what is the value of that? Well, you

can try to quantify it in terms of millions of dollars, but I think the value

goes far beyond that. The member from Powell River didn't want to talk about

that. Maybe he has thoughts on how that could be utilized or done better, but

disappointingly, from my perspective, he seemed far more

[ Page 8300 ]

interested in making some blanket political assertion, not wanting to engage

in a discussion about the facts. Again, I think that speaks volumes about what

the real intentions might have been on the part of the member from Powell River.

The post-secondary strategy — $65 million…. I'm shocked that,

having revealed what he would like us to believe are his concerns, the member

from Powell River on behalf of his caucus chooses simply to ignore that. Maybe

he wants to criticize it. Well, that's fine. That's why we're here having a

discussion, but he doesn't want to get into a discussion about the details.

Perhaps he feels himself ill-equipped to do so. Perhaps a discussion of that

sort doesn't lend itself to the kinds of general political posturing that he has

become renowned for in these precincts.

Revenue-sharing. The member from Powell River talks about

resources and apparently dismisses the significance of the $100 million new

relationship trust. I dare say I have not heard from one single member of the

first nations who characterizes the new relationship trust in the manner that I

think I heard the member from Powell River do. It sounds like he believes that

it is of limited consequence. That's his view. Thank goodness he wasn't in a

position to make decisions. Apparently, if he were, the new relationship trust,

the $100 million vested in the control of aboriginal peoples, wouldn't exist.

That's very sad. I'd have welcomed an opportunity to engage in a discussion on

that point.

Revenue-sharing to the tune of $166 million, nowhere else in the

country…. Resource-based revenue-sharing, forestry revenues, agreements in the

oil and gas sector…. It would have been interesting to hear, from a member who

purports to dismiss in a rather cavalier manner the unbelievable progress that

has been made, what his views on revenue-sharing are, or whether he has any

views. Maybe he doesn't. Maybe he is as equally dismissive of that important

step as he is of other developments that have taken place.

[1150]

Not, I'm sorry to say, a very complimentary example or performance

by an hon. member who would have us believe that he has insight and a positive

contribution to make, when the evidence we have seen here today is very much to

the contrary. Happily, there have been others who, though we may have differed

in our approaches and our analyses, have been more forthcoming in presenting

ideas, as opposed to mere political posturing.

It is disappointing because it reveals a lot about the member, and

it reveals a lot about the level of seriousness that I and we in this chamber

should attach to the comments that he makes. As I say, there are others who I

know wish to engage in this matter, but I do note the hour. I don't know if we

want to begin that process now.

Madam Chair, why don't I move that we rise, report progress and

seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:52 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on

the Internet.

Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the

Internet.

Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

channel guide • Broadcast

schedule

Copyright ©

2007: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN: 1499-2175