Hansard -- Volume 4, Number 5 -- Wednesday, March 13, 2002

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Introductions by Members		1871

Motions without Notice		1871
	Appointment of Kate Ryan-Lloyd as Table Officer Hon. G. Collins J. MacPhail

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		1872
	Journée internationale de la francophonie R. Stewart Softwood lumber negotiations R. Visser Visit to Kincolith B. Belsey

Oral Questions		1873
	Northern health authority and Sodexho J. MacPhail Hon. C. Hansen J. Kwan Public-private partnerships for health care facilities D. Chutter Hon. C. Hansen U.S. duty on tomatoes V. Roddick Hon. J. van Dongen Nelson health campus project B. Suffredine Hon. C. Hansen

Petitions		1876
	D. MacKay B. Suffredine

Motions on Notice		1876
	Referendum on treaty negotiations (Motion 30) Hon. G. Plant J. Les J. Kwan M. Hunter R. Hawes J. MacPhail Hon. G. Campbell

Second Reading of Bills		1902
	Deregulation Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 8) Hon. K. Falcon Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 7) Hon. S. Santori Hon. G. Plant Gaming Control Act (Bill 6) Hon. R. Coleman

Committee of Supply		1907
	Estimates: Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services (continued) Hon. G. Abbott J. Kwan

	Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		1919
	Estimates: Ministry of Education (continued) J. MacPhail Hon. C. Clark

J. Wilson: Today I have the great pleasure of introducing a longtime friend and special guest of the House, Dr. Stephen West. Steve and I have been acquaintances for 40 years now. I would like to make the point that Steve sat in the Legislature in Alberta from 1986 to 2001 and has done a great deal of work in that province.

Today we have the honour of having him visit our Legislature, and he's really looking forward to question period to see how things are done in British Columbia. I ask that the House make him welcome.

K. Johnston: Today it's a real pleasure for me to be able to introduce two truly long-term great friends, special friends of mine from the lower mainland, whom I've known for over 30 years. Brian and Susanne Galloway are here today to watch the proceedings, and I would ask that the House make them welcome.

P. Sahota: I would like to introduce two hard-working entrepreneurs from the forest industry: John Mohammed, who is the president of A&A Trading Ltd., and his colleague, Paul Muckler. They're here in the House with us. Would you please make them welcome.

P. Bell: Joining me in the House today from the beautiful riding of Prince George North is my wife, Brenda Bell. Would the House please make her very welcome.

R. Stewart: It's my pleasure to introduce two guests today. First, M. Paul Deroy. He's a member of the board of directors of the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique. My second guest is Mme. Monique Clébant, who is the executive director, representing La Société francophone de Victoria. [Would the House please make them welcome.]

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, it is with pleasure that I wish to announce to the House that Kate Ryan-Lloyd of the committees branch has been made a Table officer of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. Kate has been with the Assembly for nine and a half years and as a Committee Clerk for two and a half years. I'm sure all hon. members will agree that this change of status is well deserved, and the House will be asked to consider a formal motion conferring on Kate her title as a Table officer. I would like the House now to join with me in congratulating British Columbia's newest Table officer.

Hon. G. Collins: I have the honour to move, seconded by the member for Vancouver-Hastings, that Kate Ryan-Lloyd be and is hereby appointed Clerk Assistant/Committee Clerk of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.

Hon. G. Collins: I think perhaps the member, the Leader of the Opposition, would like to speak also.

I want to, first of all, congratulate Kate on her new position, although she's been working tirelessly over the last number of years. Many of us have come to rely on her good advice and stable and calm guidance through what are sometimes tumultuous committee meetings. I certainly appreciate the work she's done. She's proven herself to be of invaluable assistance to all members of the House. I want to congratulate her on her position, and I also want to extend my sympathies for her joining such a small club.

Hon. G. Collins: "Disreputable," the Attorney General said, but I couldn't possibly say that.

Being a Clerk is often a very thankless job. It is a difficult job, and you're exactly right in the middle of the crossfire. I always thought it interesting that while they keep members of the opposition and government two sword lengths apart, it's the Clerks that get to sit in the middle.

I wish her the best. I know it's a tough job. Somebody has to do it, and you've done it very well so far. We look forward to working with you in the future.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, I join you and the Government House Leader in saying absolute congratulations to Kate Ryan-Lloyd on this momentous occasion. It is momentous for a couple of reasons. One is that I understand we're getting two for one — two for the price of one in terms of the appointment. Secondly, it is not the first time that we're bringing brains to the table. I can say that virtually all appointments have brought brains to the table, but maybe it's the first time — I don't know — we're bringing beauty to the table as well. Congratulations.

Mr. Speaker: I've done the motion, but we'll do it again. You've all heard the motion.

R. Stewart: Today I've invited M. Deroy and Mme Clébant to be here as representatives of B.C.'s francophone community, as I want to announce the proclamation of March 20 as la Journée internationale de la francophonie pour la Colombie-Britannique. It was on March 20, 1970, in Niger that a treaty was signed creating the francophone nations' first intergovernmental organization, the Agence de coopération culturelle et technique. Since 1988, March 20 is the date chosen to celebrate the International Day of the Francophonie, or the Journée internationale de la francophonie.

This government wants to mark March 20 as a special day for British Columbia in recognition of Canada's two official languages. We also want to recognize the fact that our province is home to a vibrant and dynamic French-speaking community and to hundreds of thousands of other British Columbians who have embraced the French language.

French-speaking people have contributed to the development of British Columbia since their first arrival as guides, as coureurs de bois, in 1793 with the expedition of Alexander Mackenzie. Francophones played an important role in the colonization and exploration of the Pacific coast. In fact, in 1838 francophones represented 60 percent of the non-native population on B.C.'s coast.

The B.C. francophone community has been an important part of our society since then and is proud of its heritage and contribution to our province and country. On March 20 we wish to give all of our province's French-speaking individuals the opportunity to celebrate and share their contribution to our society. [Thank you to our guests for representing this proud heritage.]

There is currently a Festival de la francophonie in Victoria with many joyous activities taking place between now and March 21. I would invite all of you to participate, if you can, to get an appreciation of francophones' famous joie de vivre. Merci. Thank you.

R. Visser: Today I wanted to relay to the House what I believe Team B.C. accomplished in its two-day visit to Ottawa and how proud I am of those folks who, in the face of the crippling and prolonged softwood lumber dispute, have stood focused and resolute in representing their communities' interests as we approach this March 21 deadline.

This is the first time anything like this has ever been attempted on such a looming national issue at such a pivotal time in negotiations, and the government of Canada responded in a very strong and meaningful way. I want to thank the Prime Minister for his time and attention. I want to thank Finance minister Paul Martin for listening to those British Columbians. I want to thank the Minister for International Trade, Pierre Pettigrew, for all his hard work. More important than their time was their understanding. They listened to us. They reinforced our message, and they promised to take it onward to the meeting that the Prime Minister has with President Bush on Thursday and as the negotiations continue.

This is the largest issue we currently face as a country. For the first time in a long, long time everyone, including the opposition parties here and in Ottawa, is working cooperatively. I also want to thank the government of Quebec, with whom we met on Sunday.

Mr. Speaker, as always, I am most impressed with the passion, the intelligence and the commitment that British Columbians have towards this issue. I want to thank the mayors, who are from all parts of forest-dependent B.C. I want to thank Harvey Arcand, the secretary-treasurer of IWA-Canada; Earl Smith of the Ehattesaht first nation and the aboriginal forestry council chair; contractors; and industry CEOs. They delivered a profound message to our nation's leaders. They spoke with one voice. They set aside their often diverse and conflicting issues to talk about softwood and its impacts. They reached out to Quebec, and they spoke about Canada.

The next seven days are critical. There are no guarantees. While we may want a deal, the delegation reinforced time and time again that we only want a deal that works for British Columbia, works for Quebec but, most of all, works for all of Canada.

I want to thank the Minister of Forests for his leadership and thank those delegates, because I think our nation became a little bit stronger on Monday afternoon.

B. Belsey: I am very fortunate to have the community of Kincolith, part of the Nass community, situated in my riding. Chief Councillor Nelson Clayton and a number of the councillors met in my office and invited me to their community. Kincolith could well be one of the most remote communities in my riding. It has access only by floatplane and ferry, when the weather permits.

From the time I arrived in the community until the time I left Kincolith, I was made very, very welcome. The visit included a tour around the village and a narration by Chester Moore, the village cultural leader, who told me stories about Sim'oogit Hymass, one of the great leaders of the village. I was made a guest of

honour at a ceremony conducted by the community. I witnessed the drummers and the dancers calling the elders, the matriarchs and the chiefs into the hall. I witnessed the passing of the talking stick from elders to councillors and back again.

We exchanged gifts. I received a beautiful native print by one of the local artists, and I presented a wooden carved bowl filled with fruit, which was eventually passed on to the elders. I witnessed the singing of O Canada in the Nisga'a language. I was treated to music from the Kincolith marching band, songs from the Kincolith choir, ceremonial drumming and dancing by school members and by the men and women of the community. From time to time I participated in the dancing, and I had a wonderful time.

The highlight of the evening was a feast that included fresh oolichan, moose meat, sea lion meat, seaweed and herring roe, to name just a few of the delicacies that were offered. No effort was spared to put this impressive display of Nisga'a friendship and culture before me. During my stay in the village, I met with school teachers, principals, students and families in the communities. On Sunday I attended an Anglican church built more than a century ago.

My visit to the Nisga'a village will never be forgotten. I would just like to say to the people of the Nisga'a — simgigat, the elders; sigidimhaanak, the matriarchs; sim-oi-ghet, the chiefs; gitginglox, to all the people of Kincolith: [The member spoke Nisga'a.]

J. MacPhail: Can the Minister of Health Services confirm that the Premier's handpicked CEO in the northern health region is spending tax dollars, as we speak, on a company called Sodexho to help privatize health support services? Will the minister confirm for British Columbians a rundown of Sodexho's record in the privatization of health care in other parts of the world?

Hon. C. Hansen: We've certainly given the latitude to the health authorities to explore options as to how they can get better value for the health dollars that they have available to deliver patient care in these regions. I am aware that the northern health authority has contracted a company called Sodexho to do consulting work for them with regard to how services can be effectively delivered.

J. MacPhail: I asked the minister to provide the record of Sodexho, and he refuses to do so, so I will provide that record. Sodexho is an international company specializing in private health care. In Glasgow, Scotland, where Sodexho provides support services to the city's largest hospital, an investigation uncovered a horror story of filth and infection, the result specifically of Sodexho's shoddy work. Just this week the hospital admitted fault in the death of a patient through viral infection.

To the Minister of Health Services: does the minister support the hiring of this rogue company to privatize health services in northern B.C.?

Hon. C. Hansen: There is no health authority in this province that is privatizing health services through that kind of a process. We are looking at how we support a publicly funded health care system in British Columbia and get the best value for health dollars. We have given authority to the health authorities around this province to make sure they explore all options in terms of how they can get the best value possible and meet the needs of patients in all parts of British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: The minister's own briefing book, which had to be leaked to the public to find the truth, says that there will be privatization to the tune of where 14,000 health care workers will be privatized. Their jobs will be privatized.

The privatization scheme that led to Sodexho's hiring in Glasgow is exactly like the one this government is embarking upon in British Columbia.

The investigation in Glasgow found that piles of waste and garbage were being left in hospital elevators and on the floor because there weren't enough workers, just like the scheme that was revealed in his secret briefing book. Cleaners were being forced to serve patients food after they'd cleaned toilets. Patients were being infected with superbugs.

Again, to the Minister of Health Services: why is he letting his handpicked chair spend taxpayers' money to get advice from a private health care company with such an abysmal record?

Hon. C. Hansen: We expect our health authorities throughout the province to maintain the highest standards when it comes to sanitation and when it comes to all of the services that….

We have asked the health authorities to explore opportunities to get more cost-effective delivery of patient care in British Columbia, but we are not compromising any standards in terms of safety and the effectiveness with which those services are delivered around this province.

J. Kwan: Sodexho was embroiled in yet another scandal in Great Britain. The government and So-

dexho cooked up a scheme to allow Sodexho to pay refugees 60 cents an hour to provide support services at one of Sodexho's private refugee holding tanks. That's 1/10 of the minimum wage. I wonder if the Minister of Labour knows anybody over at Sodexho.

Sodexho should not be allowed anywhere near patients or workers in British Columbia. Will the Minister of Health Services take charge, step in and see that no more money is being spent on paying this company for advice?

Hon. C. Hansen: In this province we have standards when it comes to cleanliness. We have standards when it comes to sanitation in our hospitals and health facilities in British Columbia. We have standards when it comes to minimum wage in this province. We will not compromise on those standards.

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

J. Kwan: The CEO of the northern health authority was handpicked by this government. That CEO has gone out and hired one of the worst companies imaginable to help him privatize health care — a company that is unethical, a company that is hurting patients, a company that specializes in union-busting, a company that British Columbians want nothing to do with.

Will the Minister of Health Services show some leadership, take responsibility for the decision of the health region CEO and immediately get Sodexho off the public payroll?

Hon. C. Hansen: Our commitment to British Columbians is that we're going to deliver effective patient care in communities throughout British Columbia. We're going to do that in the most cost-effective way possible, so we have given that mandate to the health authorities. We will be holding the health authorities accountable for the standards that they meet.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Order. The minister has the floor.

Hon. C. Hansen: We will be holding them accountable for outcomes. We will be holding them accountable for the cleanliness of facilities. We will be holding them accountable for the effectiveness with which they deliver good patient care. It's the first time there's been that accountability in the health care system in British Columbia in many, many years.

D. Chutter: I would like to ask a public written question submitted by Chris O'Connor, the mayor of the village of Lytton, to the Minister of Health Services.

Hon. C. Hansen: The short answer to the question is yes. We have asked health authorities now to look at the network of facilities they need in the region to make sure that patient care is delivered in a timely and effective way. We certainly have seen local governments throughout the years take an active participation through the regional hospital districts in capital funding projects. We encourage local governments to continue to be part of that process of providing capital initiatives in their regions.

We think that local governments could do even more. They could be involved in terms of fast-tracking health care projects. They could look at zoning considerations that would help us to meet patient needs faster and at development cost charges, which are an important component of that. Also, they have local resources, as His Worship was mentioning, in the way of land and other things they could be part of when it comes to public-private partnerships.

I have talked to the minister of state responsible for community charter, and he has assured me that the community charter will include the kind of flexibility that His Worship is looking for.

D. Chutter: My supplementary is to the Minister of Health Services again. Increasingly, public-private partnerships are being implemented across Canada to improve the delivery of important public services. Could the Minister of Health Services tell us how implementing public-private partnerships will help to improve patient care in British Columbia?

Hon. C. Hansen: Certainly, if you look at the track record in this province of the construction of health facilities, it is one of cost overruns. It is one of late delivery of facilities. It is one of constant change orders that drive up those costs of construction. Our purpose is to focus in on the needs of patients in a timely way.

One perfect example is the VGH tower where you had a shell built, and it sat empty. It cost the taxpayers

about $17 million a year to have an empty facility that the previous government was not able to move on.

Hon. C. Hansen: We believe that by going to public-private partnerships, we can get the advantage of timely delivery of health facilities in this province in a way that actually meets patient care and gets the Ministry of Health Services out of the real estate business and allows us to focus on the patient care business, which should be first and foremost.

V. Roddick: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. British Columbians have been farming in my riding for over a hundred years. In that time they have become world-renowned for turning out some of the finest-quality produce. However, hothouse tomato farmers in my riding have been unfairly attacked by heavy American duties, and that now threatens their livelihood. Can the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries provide my constituents with an update on the status of this dispute?

Hon. J. van Dongen: Certainly, this is a very serious matter for B.C. tomato producers. On February 20 the U.S. Department of Commerce issued their final determination setting the anti-dumping duty for B.C. hothouse tomatoes at 18.2 percent. That would be 18.2 percent levied on the value of all tomatoes exported to the United States, and that's about 80 percent of our tomatoes.

The next important date is April 6. At that time the U.S. international trade tribunal will issue its final determination on whether or not there was injury to the U.S. industry. If there is no injury found, then that ends the whole matter. If there is injury found, then that puts in place the duty of 18.2 percent until April 2004. This is a very serious matter for our producers. We feel that the U.S. action is totally unfair and totally unfounded.

V. Roddick: The hothouse tomato industry plays a significant role in Delta South. Any barriers to trade will no doubt have an impact on the workers in my riding. Can the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries tell us to what extent he expects this dispute to impact the future of the hothouse tomato industry in British Columbia?

Hon. J. van Dongen: Certainly, it will have a significant impact. There'll be a lot of adjustments that have to be made, particularly in produce mix. Some product will simply not get shipped.

The Canadian industry has started an action of its own, which is starting to have some impact. They are working through Canada Customs to pursue this action through the whole system. Hopefully, this will bring the U.S. growers to the table, and maybe we can negotiate some kind of reasonable outcome.

We in British Columbia — and the British Columbia government — are working closely with the industry and the federal government to try and find a resolution to this unfair U.S. action.

B. Suffredine: Prior to the last election the former government said that the construction of the Nelson health campus was approved. Since then, one of the members opposite has claimed that it was even fully funded. Health services are the single most important concern we all share. Nelson and area residents want and need to know about this project.

Could the Minister of Health Services clarify the status of the Nelson health campus project?

Hon. C. Hansen: …to the Nelson health campus is that it was driven very much by a political agenda of the previous government. For members…

Hon. C. Hansen: …of the previous government to claim that that project was fully funded is like saying that there are cheques in the chequebook, so therefore there must be money in the bank. The project was never fully funded by the previous government.

What we have said to health authorities is that we are changing the way capital projects will be proceeded with in this province in the future. Instead of them being micromanaged out of Victoria with a debt service cost being carried by the provincial government in a central way, we are actually allowing the health authorities…

Hon. C. Hansen: …to determine what their priorities should be in their regions. And then we're allowing them…

Hon. C. Hansen: …to put forward their own priorities, knowing that the debt-servicing cost would have to be carried on a regional basis. So instead of having operating budgets in one hand totally disconnected from the debt-servicing cost, we're saying: "Let's make sure these things work together in the best interest of patient care in region to region around this province."

Hon. C. Hansen: …where the residents from Nelson have done a considerable amount of…

Hon. C. Hansen: …to the health authority and ensuring that it gets the proper consideration.

D. MacKay: On behalf of 453 people from South Side, which is a small community located near Burns Lake, I'd like to file this petition asking the province to consider helping with the funding for an ambulance station in South Side.

B. Suffredine: I'd like to present a petition on behalf of the east shore of Kootenay Lake. They have concerns about the proposed changes to the ferry, and they're asking the minister to consult before proceeding with the changes.

Hon. G. Collins: I call government motions on notice, and I call Motion 30 in the name of the Hon. Attorney General.

Hon. G. Plant: This government sought election on a commitment to negotiate workable, affordable treaty settlements that will provide certainty, finality and equality. We believe treaties are the best way to forge a new relationship with first nations, a relationship based upon mutual trust, recognition and respect.

Treaties offer the promise of a new era of hope, economic opportunity and greater self-determination for all aboriginal people, but for too long most British Columbians have felt shut out of the process. So we made two commitments to bring the people of B.C. into the treaty process. We promised to give all British Columbians a say on the principles that should guide B.C.'s approach to treaty negotiations through a one-time provincewide referendum within our first year. We also promised to ask an all-party committee of the Legislature to consult with British Columbians, including first nations, to draft the referendum questions.

We kept the second promise. The all-party committee has consulted and reported to the Legislature. Today we are putting in motion the steps to keep the first promise.

The government will conduct a referendum on the principles to guide the province's participation in treaty negotiations. The referendum will be held under the Referendum Act. The vote will be by mail-in ballot. Ballots will be mailed to B.C. voters commencing April 2. Voting begins when ballots are received. The last day for returning ballots will be May 15, and the results will be announced as soon thereafter as the counting is complete.

The referendum questions will be those approved by this assembly at the conclusion of debate on the motion now before the House. As provided for in section 4 of the Referendum Act, if more than 50 percent of the validly cast ballots vote the same way on a question stated, that result will be binding on this government.

Treaty-making is a three-party negotiation process created as a result of the 1991 report of the B.C. Claims Task Force. That report contained 19 recommendations. This government has consistently affirmed its support for each of the 19 recommendations of the task force.

The first and fundamental recommendation of the task force is that the first nations, Canada and British Columbia establish a new relationship based on mutual trust, respect and understanding through political negotiations. This recommendation makes it clear that the treaty process is a political process.

The task force's second recommendation is also important to today's debate. That recommendation is that each of the parties to the treaty process be at liberty to introduce any issues at the negotiation table that it views as significant to the new relationship. Implicit in this second recommendation of the task force are two questions: what are the issues that the province as one of three parties views as significant to the new relationship? And how are those issues to be determined?

It must surely be the case that each party to the treaty process can bring to the table its own vision, objectives and mandate for what it seeks to achieve through these political negotiations. As we know, first nations negotiators work hard to connect with their communities to ascertain the vision, objectives and mandate that they bring to the table on behalf of their communities. The government of Canada is free to decide upon its goals for treaty-making and to pursue them as it sees best. So, too, then must the government of British Columbia be able to define its own vision, its own objectives and its own mandate for negotiations.

If these are — as the task force said they were to be — political negotiations, then it is surely right for this government to decide how to obtain a mandate supported by those to whom it is politically accountable — namely, the electorate of British Columbia. We choose to do so by asking the people directly.

For too long the province has sat at the treaty table without a clear sense of direction or purpose. It's time to remedy that omission. This referendum does not seek to tell first nations what issues they should introduce nor what goals or aspirations they should pursue at the treaty table. Nor does this referendum presume to tell the government of Canada what it should pursue. This referendum seeks from the electorate of British Columbia a mandate on principles to guide the province's negotiators. With a clear set of principles, the province's negotiators will have a clearer sense of purpose.

It is important to say what this referendum is not about. This referendum will not, indeed cannot, interfere with or compromise the constitutionally protected aboriginal rights and title of the aboriginal peoples of British Columbia. I have heard many people make a contrary claim. However, I have never heard them defend that contention. The reason is simple: there is no basis for the argument.

After 1982 no unilateral action by the province, whether in a referendum or in any other process, is capable of determining or limiting the existence or the content of aboriginal rights and title. Equally fundamental and important to make clear here is the fact that the constitution of Canada, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, will continue to apply to all British Columbians before and after land claim settlements.

Treaty-making is a political negotiation to find common ground that will form the basis of an agreement, but no one is bound to agree to that which they cannot accept. If a first nation finds it cannot achieve agreement with the province and Canada on a mutually acceptable land claim settlement, then it will be free to determine its rights by litigation.

First nations who choose to litigate will find that nothing in this referendum has in any way compromised their constitutional rights. But litigation is surely not the pathway to certainty or reconciliation. Litigation is expensive, adversarial and time-consuming. In this area of the law, it seldom produces any certainty. I only need one example to prove my point. After 13 years of litigation in the Delgamuuk case, in which Gitxsan-Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs asked the court to declare their ownership and jurisdiction over their traditional territories, the Supreme Court of Canada refused to grant this relief and ordered a new trial. That is neither certain, nor does it achieve reconciliation.

I want to express the government's appreciation to the legislative committee chaired by the member for Chilliwack-Sumas and to all those who made submissions to it. The work of the committee has begun a conversation with the people of British Columbia. That conversation is essential if we are to reinvigorate the treaty process.

The legislative committee made two recommendations. First, it recommended that a process of reconciliation, including an expression of regret by the government of British Columbia regarding the experiences of aboriginal people, be undertaken. As a part of this recommendation the committee said it envisioned treaties perhaps including specific language addressing reconciliation. It emphasized that this is a process of community-based reconciliation and is not meant to attribute blame or guilt to individuals. The government accepts this recommendation.

Government also accepts the committee's observation that this reconciliation process will need to be undertaken in consultation with first nations. To put that in the context of the language of the task force report, reconciliation, including an expression of regret by government, is an issue that the government of British

Columbia wishes to introduce at the negotiation table because we believe it is significant to the new relationship between first nations and British Columbia.

The committee also recommended a ballot for the referendum. Government has given careful consideration to the committee's recommendations for the contents of the referendum ballot, including the referendum questions. In the days following the tabling of the committee's report last November, I also listened as carefully as I could to the opinions of British Columbians who read and responded to the report's recommendations.

In thinking about treaty principles it soon becomes clear that some principles are simply so fundamental to the entire process that they are not open to question. These fundamental principles include the following: treaty settlements should be workable and affordable and they should provide certainty, finality and equality. To put the point another way: no one could seriously contend that treaties should be unaffordable or unworkable or that they should create uncertainty, endless disputes or inequality.

In considering the committee's recommended questions, we also took into account the need to construct a ballot with a manageable number of easy-to-understand questions. We also recognized that the primary objective of the referendum is to provide negotiators with a mandate on substantive issues, not process. The committee recommended three questions that have more to do with the process of negotiation than with the substance of treaty settlements. These questions were:

2. Treaty negotiation will be responsive to the input of local community and economic interests.

Government does not need to seek a mandate from the voters on those three points. They represent the clear and unequivocal policy and commitments of the government.

We also considered the form of some of the proposed questions. The referendum is about principles. Since this is a three-party negotiation in which some measure of compromise is inevitable, the province cannot, as one among three parties, guarantee a result. We wish to be guided by principles, and we will be held to account for our adherence to them, but we cannot promise outcomes.

The legislative committee also recommended a question with respect to the goals of administrative simplicity and jurisdictional clarity amongst various levels of government. Again, this seems to me to be practically self-evident. No one could want administrative complexity or jurisdictional confusion. Settlement agreements that fostered excessive complexity or confusion would, I respectfully suggest, be unworkable. The need for jurisdictional clarity is important, but it is forcefully raised by other questions.

Lastly, government believes it is inappropriate to ask the electorate to vote on matters essentially internal to first nations. I know the committee heard from aboriginal women who expressed concerns about aboriginal governments post-treaty, and I know others have concerns about access to treaty benefits for those who live off reserve.

I do not discount these concerns. They are important, and governments representing the public interest will have to take them into account in the treaty process. But the question of what vision, mandate and objectives ought to be brought to the table by first nations is a question for first nations, not this referendum.

Mr. Speaker, the product of the analysis I have just described is the questions contained in the motion now before the House. The proposed ballot will read as follows:

The government takes a position on these questions. We would answer "yes" to each of them. Answering yes to these questions will provide the province's negotiators with a clear mandate on issues that have arisen and will continue to arise in the course of negotiations. With a renewed and clearer sense of purpose, better progress will be made at the tables, leading to agreements that will enjoy public support and build a strong foundation for enduring relationships built upon mutual recognition, reconciliation and respect.

Some will say that some of these questions are, to use an outmoded term, motherhood questions. I respectfully disagree.

When first nations politicians say that first nations own British Columbia lock, stock and barrel, they don't make an exception for parks and protected areas. Provincial leases and licences are routinely challenged by first nations in court. If and when demands are made for exclusive hunting or fishing rights outside treaty

settlement lands, I want our negotiators to be able to say that the people of British Columbia have said they want continued hunting, fishing and recreational opportunities on Crown land.

When demands are made for self-government authority, I want to be able to say that the people of British Columbia have told us we should insist upon negotiating tools that will harmonize land use planning between aboriginal governments and neighbouring local governments. Yes, aboriginal governments may have the power to plan the use of their own lands, but equally importantly the province should be at the table insisting that mechanisms be put in place so that first nations and local governments can work and plan together for the good of both communities.

These are not motherhood questions. They are real questions about real issues, and they are real principles.

Some will ask: what would no mean? What would the answer no mean to any of these questions? Simply put, the answer no to any question means that the provincial government should not adopt that principle to guide its participation in treaty negotiations. That might have different significance in different contexts.

To illustrate the point, let's look at the first principle, the principle that private property should not be expropriated for treaty settlements. If a majority of voters vote no to this question, it means that government need not be constrained by a principle against private property expropriation in negotiating treaty land issues. Presumably, government would be less reluctant to expropriate land if this principle were rejected. That's what no means in this context.

I want to set this point in a slightly larger context. I have said that the proposition that private property should not be expropriated for treaty settlements is a statement of principle that can usefully guide the province's participation in treaty negotiations. Let me state the obvious: it is not put forward as a statement intended to guide negotiators for first nations or for Canada.

Moreover, nothing about this question, whether answered yes or no, in any way subjects minority rights to the whim of the majority. This principle does not bind first nations. It does not bind Canada. It does not bind the courts. Nor, for that matter, does this principle bind the province in its dealings with ordinary citizens and landholders outside the treaty process. It is simply a principle to guide the province in negotiations with first nations. In limited, appropriate cases this principle might permit the acquisition of land on a willing seller, willing buyer basis — provided, of course, that that action was consistent with other principles including, for example, the important principle that treaty negotiation will be responsive to the input of local community and economic interests.

A similar analysis can be undertaken for each of the eight principles, with similar results. Take, for example, the sixth principle: the principle that aboriginal self-government should have the characteristics of local government with powers delegated from Canada and British Columbia. This is not a legal statement about aboriginal self-government. It is a political statement about the province's interests in negotiating self-government at the treaty table.

Voting yes to this principle means that the province will seek to negotiate aboriginal self-government arrangements with the characteristics of local government with powers delegated from Canada and British Columbia. Examples of such self-government arrangements already exist. They include Sechelt. They include self-government under the Yukon land claim agreements, and there are other examples across Canada.

Voting yes to this principle does mean that the province will not seek to negotiate self-government on the Nisga'a model with paramount powers entrenched in constitutional concrete and limited democratic accountability for the non-aboriginal citizens governed by the first nation.

What would voting no to the sixth principle mean? Again, voting no means that the province need not adopt this principle to guide its participation in treaty negotiations. It does not mean that the province would refuse to negotiate self-government. Voting no would mean, from the province's perspective, that the discussion about self-government will not be guided by or constrained by the principle expressed in the sixth question. Presumably, if a majority of voters voted no to this question, the province's negotiators would be more receptive to proposals for constitutionally entrenched self-government.

I have already pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that the preamble to the ballot, which I earlier read, contains and will contain a commitment to affordability. This is a critically important commitment. The best measure of affordability of a particular settlement is the willingness of the province's elected representatives to accept it. Accordingly, the government commits that all proposed agreements will be presented to this House with a full accounting of treaty costs. The former government failed to do this with Nisga'a. We will not repeat that mistake.

Let me now say more about how the referendum will be conducted. There will be no large-scale government advertising campaign. Government will not provide funding to support any other party in putting forward their views on the referendum questions, nor will the law constrain or limit the ability of other parties to conduct at their expense any information campaign that they wish to conduct.

Elections B.C. will conduct the referendum. It will send out information about voter registration and voting packages, and it will count the vote. I am informed that the ballot count may take several weeks, depending upon the rate and the timing of return of the ballots.

A referendum office will be established to provide factual and timely responses to referendum-related questions from the public. Commencing March 18, a few days from now, the referendum office will send

voters a householder which will provide them with information about the referendum, including information about how to contact the referendum office. There will be a 1-800 telephone line and a website. The householder will not provide information about the questions, positions or arguments on the questions, but the referendum office will be accessible by phone, website and mail, and will provide information to people who request it. The referendum office will maintain neutrality with respect to the questions. In some cases, detailed questions asked of the referendum office may be referred to government or Elections B.C. or a third party.

Government undertakes the responsibility of helping the public understand why we need to negotiate treaties and why we urge the voters to vote yes in this referendum.

I want to conclude with two general observations. Some have argued and I expect, in the days to come, will continue to argue that treaties should be settled on an all-cash-for-clear-title basis. That argument, if accepted, would doom the treaty project to certain failure. When we speak as British Columbians about the historic Indian land question, we need to recognize, as the courts have said, that aboriginal title is a legal interest in land that is protected by the constitution and that aboriginal title cannot be held by individual aboriginal persons. It is a collective right to land held by all members of an aboriginal nation. When aboriginal people speak about their traditional territories, they do so in terms that connect their traditional territories to their sense of identity as first nations. We must respect that reality.

Lastly, I want to repeat again in the strongest possible terms my view that this project is both morally and democratically legitimate. Some will argue that the issues raised by these questions are too difficult for the average voter. This referendum is about lands, resources, governments, taxes — the very stuff of citizenship in a modern, complex world. Democracy requires that we trust citizens with these questions while recognizing, also, that in our democracy the rights of minorities enjoy constitutional protections as strong as any found on the surface of the Earth — vigorously guarded by an independent judiciary.

This referendum is a conversation. It can be respectful. We can disagree and listen at the same time. We can even learn from our disagreements how to build a common cause. Voting yes to these questions will establish essential parts of the vision, objectives and mandate that the province's negotiators will take — that they need to take — to the treaty table to build lasting treaties and new relationships so that all British Columbians, including first nations, can work together to build hope and prosperity.

J. Les: I'm pleased to rise today and participate in the debate on this important initiative which fulfills another commitment made to the people of British Columbia by our government in last year's election. Specifically, the commitment was this: to give all British Columbians a say on the principles that should guide B.C.'s approach to treaty negotiations through a one-time provincewide referendum within our first year.

I am proud to be part of a government that keeps its commitments. Just as we are following through on a commitment to double the First Citizens Fund to $72 million to support native friendship centres, student bursaries and economic development programs, we will be offering all B.C. voters an opportunity to express their opinion regarding treaty-making principles — a public policy issue that has enormous implications for aboriginal and non-aboriginal British Columbians alike. Treaties are about how we are going to live together.

Treaty-making today is clearly much more complex than the process of treaty-making previously in the history of this country. The economy has advanced, and millions of non-aboriginal people now live here. The complexities that flow from this situation make it mandatory that there is a broad and, hopefully, informed consent amongst all residents as to how we proceed and what the guiding principles are to be that guide the treaty-making process.

Let me be clear. This referendum or its result in no way detracts or derogates from the constitutionally guaranteed and protected rights that aboriginal people possess. Further, we all strongly support the treaty-making initiative, and I believe strongly that the proposed referendum will be an important and productive step towards the goal of negotiating workable, affordable treaty settlements that will provide certainty, finality and equality.

Treaty-making is a matter of social justice and practical necessity. Aboriginal peoples have rights under the constitution that need to be clarified and codified. Treaties will accomplish that objective. I need to repeat again: this is not a referendum on aboriginal rights. Existing aboriginal rights are already protected under the constitution of Canada. They cannot be extinguished or surrendered without aboriginal consent.

Those who insist that this is a referendum on minority rights, quite simply, have it wrong. This is an opportunity for the public to have a say regarding the negotiating principles that guide B.C.'s negotiators in the negotiating process. This is not an attempt to stall the treaty process. Arguably, it has been stalled for years. If British Columbians respond as I believe they will, treaty-making will be reinvigorated, re-energized and relegitimized — an opportunity that we should then all seize and move forward with.

I was pleased to act as the Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs that was tasked with the responsibility of conducting public hearings and, subsequently, to make recommendations regarding questions that should be put to the public in a one-time referendum on treaty principles.

There were those who predicted that the public hearing process would be divisive and destructive, leading to racial tension and all manner of unpleasant-

ness and bringing out the very worst in people. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to report that these predictions absolutely failed to materialize.

In the event, we heard from some 500 people, both verbally and in writing, at 15 public meetings convened in communities throughout the province. Practically without exception, we heard from people who were respectful and who appreciated the opportunity to dialogue regarding this important public policy matter. We heard from an exceptional variety of British Columbians: academics, scholars, homemakers, church leaders, municipal politicians, aboriginal individuals and leaders, young people, loggers, miners and cattlemen — in short, a complete cross-section of our province.

Of all the presenters we heard from, I don't recall anyone telling us not to negotiate treaties. On the contrary, I believe it's fair to say that everyone wanted us to make the process better and more successful. No doubt, some of the suggestions offered were unworkable or unrealistic, but many offered significant insights.

We heard of the dreams and aspirations of aboriginal people themselves and from aboriginal women with misgivings about what the treaty-making process means for them and how it may impact their rights as women. In my view, a particularly significant presentation was made by an aboriginal young woman, who later wrote an editorial to one of the local papers in her area. I wish to refer to that in my remarks, and I will quote from her editorial. It said this:

That, Mr. Speaker, I think, is evidence that the process of dialogue works in a very positive way.

These people articulately, in many cases, talked about their vision for the future, how they saw aboriginal and non-aboriginal people living together in the future, and what would or should characterize the new relationship. There is significant divergence in points of view amongst the public. Much of this can be ascribed to the fact that these are very complex legal and constitutional issues, but there was one common theme throughout: British Columbians want to get on with a productive and conclusive treaty-making process. They recognize the injustices and shortcomings of the past and want a practical and pragmatic resolution to treaty-making.

The public is interested in treaties that are constitutionally sound and that will produce justice and opportunity for aboriginal people. They recognize that treaty-making will affect us all and that the cost in terms of resources, land and other considerations will be considerable.

To those who predicted chaos as a result of having the temerity to conduct public hearings around these issues, I say: you seriously underestimate the willingness and ability of British Columbians to engage in a respectful and useful discussion on these issues. The average British Columbian is fair-minded and resents the suggestion that they are incapable or should not be allowed the opportunity to openly and rigorously consider, debate and discuss aboriginal treaty issues.

Similarly, I expect the upcoming referendum process itself will be a positive exercise in public consultation that will enable us to move forward, post-referendum.

We know that treaty-making has not had an illustrious history in the recent past. Other than the Nisga'a treaty, which was negotiated outside of the B.C. Treaty Commission process, no other treaties have been achieved — this, in spite of a decade of negotiations and $500 million spent by all parties in the process.

Four agreements-in-principle have been initialled at the treaty table and subsequently rejected by the first nations people involved. These were the Nuu-chah-nulth, the Sliammon, the Sechelt and the In-SHUCK-ch.

Clearly, we need to take a step back. Clearly, we cannot continue to expend these enormous resources without achieving results. Clearly, our constituents, be they aboriginal or non-aboriginal, deserve better. Clearly, it is in all of our interests to renovate the process to produce the certainty we all require.

The current state of uncertainty that exists in British Columbia is detrimental to everyone's interests. It inhibits investment in our economy. It slows economic growth. It postpones the day that aboriginal peoples themselves get out from under the burden of the Indian Act. It continues the economic underperformance and social despair evident in so many aboriginal communities, both on and off reserve.

The opportunity for aboriginal people to more fully participate in the economy is frustrated. We need to do better than to continue to wallow in fruitless uncertainty while unproductive so-called negotiations grind on endlessly.

Our constituents demand a revitalized approach to treaty-making. They are asking us to produce results and certainty. Even if we cannot achieve complete and final treaties immediately, incremental treaty-making is an approach that should be attempted. The B.C. Treaty Commission has also suggested that the big-bang approach to treaty-making may not be the best. An incremental process that allows capacity-building to occur, while some treaty benefits are realized, may be a much more productive approach.

Let me turn to the recommended referendum questions. I believe that these fairly and reasonably reflect the recommendations put forward by the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. If these suggested principles are supported by the public, I believe they will provide a solid foundation for the provincial position in future treaty negotiations. It is absolutely impossible to presuppose or anticipate every nuance that might present itself in negotiations. However, these suggested principles will provide an essential blueprint to guide provincial negotiators.

I am particularly pleased that the recommendation to conduct the referendum by way of a mail-in ballot is being acted upon. This will provide several beneficial features. Firstly, it will be a less costly mechanism. More importantly, it will provide British Columbians a more reflective and thoughtful opportunity to consider and respond to the questions posed. Who knows? It may even lead to discussion around the kitchen table and at other informal gatherings — all of which will help to raise the level of awareness and discussion, which can only help to develop the public consensus necessary to move forward.

Again, I am confident in the public's ability to fairly consider these matters and guide us in these important negotiations. Those who decry this process need to be very careful indeed not to denigrate the B.C. public and their ability to understand and appreciate what is at stake, what is fair and what is reasonable. Do not sell the public short.

I would urge all British Columbians to participate in this unique opportunity. Treaties will be an important future feature of all of British Columbia's economic, social and political landscape. It is vital not only that these treaties reflect current realities but that they be able to stand the test of time and be equally as relevant to our collective children and grandchildren as they may be to the negotiating parties at the table today.

Mr. Speaker, I commend this process to all British Columbians, and I would encourage all members of this House to support the motion.

J. Kwan: I rise to enter into debate on the Attorney General's motion on a referendum on aboriginal issues. I'd like to begin the debate by telling a story that was told to me by a member from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant when I first got involved in community politics. Later on, when I was elected, this person reminded me, as the elected MLA for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, of this story.

I've told this story to some members of the House, but other members might not have heard it. It was impressed upon me that this story and the principles behind it must guide us in all of our actions on the question around aboriginal issues.

The story begins like this. Once upon a time there was this beautiful, vast land called British Columbia. At that time this land did not have a name; it was simply a vast, beautiful piece of land. On this land there was a bench, and on this bench sat a nation of peoples who have now come to be known in western society, I guess, as the first nations of British Columbia.

They occupied this bench. They lived off this land. They governed each other. They supported each other. They learned with each other. They respected each other. Perhaps most important of all, in this story, is that they very much respected the ability to work with each other not in a confrontational way but in a way that often we now speak of — as the aboriginal people do — as a resolutionary way, where they work with each other to overcome difficulties. They listened to their elders. They took advice from their elders, and they guided each other with those principles — first and foremost, guided by respect.

Over time, on this bench where this nation of peoples lived, visitors began to show up. They showed up on this vast land. As is the case with the aboriginal peoples in British Columbia, they were great hosts. They not only allowed these guests to have a seat on this bench — and the guests did ask for a seat on this bench — but they allowed them to enjoy and share the resources that they had. As time went on, more and more non-aboriginal people — visitors, if you will — came to this land and sat on this bench.

Over time it became so overwhelming that as the space on the bench got squeezed more and more, the aboriginal people found themselves being pushed off that bench. They found they no longer had a seat on the very bench on which they began, the very bench on which they supported their families and their communities and they cared for each other, to the point where they are now completely off that bench. Not only are they off that bench; they're being governed by the people who came and consumed the space on this bench.

Now the aboriginal people, the first people of this land, are saying: "No more. We want a seat back on this bench." They don't want the whole bench back. They're not saying: "Get off our bench and go away." They're simply saying: "We want our rightful place in history. We want a seat back on this bench, and we want to be respected. We want to have the ability to live on the resources. We've always done so. We want the opportunity to grow. We want the opportunity for self-sufficiency, for self-determination." They want an opportunity to be their nation once again.

They're saying this to the people who came and consumed their bench and consumed their space. They use a variety of different tactics to try and get their

message through. In most instances they use approaches that are non-violent, non-confrontational. They're saying they're prepared to share, but they're saying: "We want our rightful place in history."

Hon. Speaker, I'm often reminded of the story that was told to me by a good friend of mine, a constituent of mine, especially as I entered the halls of the Legislature to assume my role in 1996 as the elected MLA for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. I do know that the aboriginal issues run deep in our history. I look around my community, and I see the damage that has been done to the first people of this nation by the people who came and took that space on that bench.

That's one story. I think it's a short story in that it captures the history of British Columbia with respect to aboriginal people and aboriginal issues. Some, when they hear this story, will perhaps think: "Well, you know, it's just sentimentality. Jenny's always sentimental and emotional about these issues." Maybe it's not even — some perhaps would challenge — legal in terms of the rights aboriginal people have. Some may even challenge the historical facts of the aboriginal people in this province.

As I engage in the debate on this motion, I'd like to just walk through some of the legal issues around aboriginal issues, because I think it is pertinent that we understand the legal rights of aboriginal people and where they stand. It brings us to the question that this referendum cannot be supported, must not proceed, and I think the legal arguments will illustrate that very clearly. Then I will have more points to make about why this referendum should not proceed.

The courts have said that the governments have a duty to negotiate, to negotiate treaties in good faith. Chief Justices have made this conclusion. Working backwards…. I guess it's not one of the most recent cases anymore — the Delgamuukw case. It is one of the most prominent cases that spelled out more clearly the rights of aboriginal people. In that case the Chief Justice had ruled: "Moreover, the Crown is under a moral, if not a legal, duty to enter into and conduct those negotiations in good faith. Ultimately, it is through negotiated settlements, with good faith and give and take on all sides, reinforced by the judgments of this court, that we will achieve…'the reconciliation of the pre-existence of aboriginal societies with the sovereignty of the Crown.' Let's face it, we're all here to stay."

That is from the judgment of the Delgamuukw case. It speaks very clearly of the rights of the aboriginal people: that the aboriginal people have a legal right and that the Crown, meaning the province, has a legal responsibility to negotiate treaties in good faith — and, although not legal, I would argue a moral responsibility, as the courts have recognized. The Delgamuukw case is not the only case. It's one case that really highlighted and more clearly defined the rights of aboriginal peoples in saying to the province that they have a responsibility to negotiate treaties with the first nations.

The constitutional position of aboriginal peoples begins with the simple fact — a very simple fact — that the aboriginal people were here first. It brings us back to that story where I say that once upon a time there was this piece of land. On this land was a bench, and on this bench lived a nation of people known as the first nations. The Supreme Court of Canada understood that and described aboriginal title as follows: "The fact is that when the settlers came the Indians were there, organized in societies and occupying the land as their forefathers had done for centuries. This is what Indian title means."

It is very clear. The case — this was the Calder case in 1973 — clearly laid out the constitutional position of aboriginal peoples. It's very simple to grasp, a simple historical fact: the aboriginal peoples were the first people on this land.

To further the constitutional question around the rights of aboriginal people, we only have to go to the Royal Proclamation of 1763. The proclamation states:

In other words, it simply means that aboriginal peoples are to be respected in their possession, their claim, of the land until the Crown concludes a treaty with them.

Actually, I should pause for just a moment, because I used the word "claim." The aboriginal community takes offence at that word, because it is not a land claim. They're not claiming the land; it's land that belonged to them. They often point that out to me. They say, "We're not claiming back land; it's simply recognizing that the land belonged to us in the first place" — to the first people of this land, which the court has already recognized. Really, rightfully, it's their right to possess that land, and it's their title. The Supreme Court has affirmed that pre-existing right and the continued right of possession.

Another case, the Guerin case in 1984, said the aboriginal people were admitted to be "the rightful occupants of the soil, with a legal as well as a just claim to retain possession of it, and to use it according to their own discretion." That was established in 1984.

This case goes on to say: "Their interest in their lands is a pre-existing legal right not created by royal proclamation by s. 18(1) of the Indian Act or by any other executive order or legislative provision." So let's be clear: the Crown does not have the authority to legislate.

The courts have now recognized that aboriginal rights rest with the people, with the simple fact that they were the first people here. The proclamation had nothing to do with it, but even then the proclamation

recognized the right of the aboriginal people to process title ( to own land — and the courts reconfirmed that at a later date.

The courts have concluded that, in fact, the pre-existing legal rights are much broader than some people would like to have them. Some people would like to imply that aboriginal people should only have the right to some of their traditional values being honoured. As an example, on the resources of the land, they could go and pick berries; they could go and hunt, perhaps, as some of their rights. The courts have defined the rights of aboriginal people to be much broader than that. It is not just ceremonial practices.

This is what they have to say in the Delgamuukw case. First, aboriginal title encompasses the right to exclusive use and occupation of land. Second, aboriginal title encompasses the right to choose to what use this land can be put subject to the ultimate limit that those uses cannot destroy the ability of the land to sustain future generations of aboriginal peoples. Third, lands held pursuant to aboriginal title have an inescapable economic component.

The aboriginal community, amongst many communities, is one of the best communities. It will be the first to come forward and say, "We live off this land, yes, to feed us and sustain us as we live now," but they also say: "We will only take from the land, the motherland, what we need today but no more, nor will we abuse the motherland so that the generations to come would not be able to benefit from the resources." They would say that in living off the land and the resources, they would see economic development, not so that it would destroy sustainability for future generations, but rather to preserve it for future generations ( for economic gain, but not gain at all costs. That's what the aboriginal community that I have learned from says, and those are the principles they have always lived by. The courts have defined that very clearly for us in terms of what their rights are with respect to the land, the title and the resources that rest on that land.

The question always comes up: can the province, as the Crown, rid itself of its fiduciary responsibility to the aboriginal people? The court has something to say about that, too, because treaty negotiation is the premise by which government can rid itself of that fiduciary responsibility. The principal government that leads in this process would be the federal government ( Canada ? not necessarily the Crown but the highest level, the highest order of government.

To put it another way, the Crown can only rid itself, if you will, of the burden of responsibility of the aboriginal title through a treaty concluded by Canada. The federal government must be the lead in this, and the lands become open for disposition by the province. It is only through negotiations that you could achieve that.

The constitutional burden of aboriginal title on Crown title has also been repeatedly upheld in the Supreme Court of Canada and again most recently, in 1997, the Delgamuukw case. The Crown title burden by aboriginal title…. That burden can only be lifted through the federal government, the government of Canada, through negotiations.

The province has no power whatsoever to legislate in relation to Indians and land reserved for Indians, because this power is assigned exclusively to Canada. As for the province, you may want to say that through this referendum process, you're going to want to get a mandate from the people. But no matter what mandate you get, irrespective of the questions, Canada does not have the authority, legally, to rid itself of the burden of the title. We do not have that responsibility. This is another reason why — and I will go on later to tell you — this referendum is a waste of time and money. It should be money spent elsewhere, not through this process.

Keeping in mind over — goodness — a century of time in terms of the courts defining, further defining and further clarifying the rights of the aboriginal people, it is important for us to understand where the courts have come from and to understand, then, the history behind aboriginal title and the aboriginal issues.

The relationship between the Crown and aboriginal peoples has been described by the courts, as I mentioned earlier, as a fiduciary responsibility, a fiduciary relationship. This means the government is bound to treat aboriginal peoples and their land differently from other Canadians, because they have a fiduciary responsibility. They're bound to do that.

The Crown must safeguard and protect the aboriginal right of occupation and ensure a fair process. If and when aboriginal peoples choose to give up land rights to the Crown, what is the role of the province? The role of the province is to protect that land, to safeguard it and to ensure there is a fair process. That is the role of the province. When and if the aboriginal people choose to give up that land, that right to the Crown, then that land could be shared. That is the legal definition of when the province could intercede in terms of the rights of aboriginal title. This has been established through the courts over a number of years. Not only in the courts has that been established, it plainly says and has been interpreted for us in the courts that the constitution under section 35(1) spells out the rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada.

Section 35(1) clearly states: "The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed." The constitution has recognized that, and the definition of that section has been defined by the courts over the years with a number of different cases. The Supreme Court, the highest court in Canada, has concluded that aboriginal title is indeed incorporated under our Charter, section

The aboriginal community has always maintained that. Over the years many people didn't listen. I recall in the last session with this government, when Dr. Joe Gosnell stood at the bar of this chamber and told the story about how he and his father before him and his father before him had travelled all the way to the Legislature seeking justice in this House, asking to be heard, and how they were barred from that process. They were sent back. They were not allowed to come into the Legislature. They were not allowed to speak to the members of this House.

Joe Gosnell came when the Nisga'a was finally ratified by the three levels of government — with the provincial government first. He came and told his story. He said he had black, flowing hair and was at a young age when he pursued this goal of gaining the rights for aboriginal people and achieving through that process a modern-day treaty. He stood before us at that time, silver-haired and perhaps in the autumn of his life.

It was very moving. I remember members in this House sat and listened. Many of us had tears in our eyes. I know my colleague here from Vancouver-Hastings, myself, the then Deputy Premier and then Premier — we all had tears in our eyes, even Liberal opposition members. I remember the Minister of State for Women's Equality. I remember looking over at her, and she had tears in her eyes.

It meant something — the modern-day treaty. That process was achieved outside of the Treaty Commission. Nonetheless, it was a treaty-making process that achieved the goals of what all people wanted.

You have to ask if the referendum would help that process. Would it derail that process, or would it hinder that process? I would have to argue that the referendum would indeed hinder the process instead.

I digressed from my legal arguments, and I should get back to that. The legal arguments are important to lay the groundwork of what we're talking about. I focused around the land issue and the title issue. I focused around the fiduciary responsibility and the resource question. I want to touch on the resource question a little bit more, because the referendum actually touches on that as well.

The courts have spelled out very clearly for the province and for others what the province must take for the infringement to be lawful. That is to say, aboriginal peoples must be given a priority in decisions affecting natural resources. Over the course of the years it became more clear around what that priority must include in the decisions affecting natural resources.

The court case, again in Delgamuukw, stated that what is required is that the government demonstrate both the process by which it allocated the resources and the actual allocation of the resource which results from the process reflect the prior interest of the holders of the aboriginal title in the land. That is to say, aboriginal people must be given a priority in decisions affecting natural resources. That is the Delgamuukw decision.

It goes on to say that aboriginal peoples must also be properly consulted. How did they identify that in the courts? They have said: "There is always a duty of consultation." The nature and the scope of the duty of consultation will vary with the circumstances. Consultation must be in good faith and with the intention of substantially addressing the concerns of the aboriginal peoples whose lands are at issue. It is not just willy-nilly consultation. It is not just consultation by a motion, but rather good-faith consultation. That consultation must be reflected in the decision of the government.

The Delgamuukw case goes on further to define that not only must you consult, not only do aboriginal peoples have a priority in the decisions, but that if resources or lands are taken away from them, there must be compensation for this infringement — the infringement of their interests in the land, whether it be the land or the resources associated with it.

The courts have clearly defined that. In the Delgamuukw case: "In keeping with the duty…and good faith on the Crown, fair compensation will ordinarily be required when aboriginal title is infringed." That was spelled out in the Delgamuukw case very clearly.

We've recognized that aboriginal people are the first people of this land through a variety of court cases and through constitutional areas. We have clearly identified that in that definition, aboriginal peoples have the rights to their resources; that the resources and the land are to be defined in a broad scope, not only in limited ceremonial ways; that there is a responsibility of the Crown to engage in consultation; that aboriginal people must be a priority in that process; and finally, when there is infringement on the rights of aboriginal people, that they must be compensated.

Throughout the years people have tried to challenge those rights of aboriginal people. They've tried to put forward extinguishment arguments. They were advanced in 1986, 1997 and throughout in trying to take away the rights of aboriginal people. However, the courts have rejected that. They have rejected that argument, and they said: "No. Aboriginal peoples do have rights." It all goes back to the very first premise, the premise that on this land there was this bench, and on this bench sat the first people of this land, and they have the right to the title of this land. It's all premised back to that one simple principle.

The courts have defined very clearly what aboriginal rights are. Aboriginal nations are under the protection of the Crown. This means that British Columbia cannot treat aboriginal peoples as if their rights are at the province's pleasure. It means that aboriginal nations are not to be molested or disturbed in the territories that they occupied, which are reserved for them. It means that British Columbia cannot simply ignore the rights of aboriginal peoples or choose what rights, if any, they'll seek a mandate to respect. It means that treaty negotiations and the rights of occupation must be engaged and must be respected.

The Crown cannot unburden itself of this responsibility; the province cannot. The only level of government that could is the federal government, the government of Canada. For British Columbia, until treaties are made, the province does not have full power to dispose of the resources of the province and third-party interests derived from the Crown, because the province has that responsibility to maintain its land — to be a caretaker of the land, if you will.

What is the real question, then, before us given that the constitution, the Charter and the courts have defined the rights of aboriginal people? The real question for us is around treaty negotiations: how to implement those rights and the relationship the courts have taken great pains to articulate. They have already told British Columbia what your mandate needs to be. It's already all spelled out.

All we have to do is look back in history and understand that history, document that history, learn from that history and take that history as our mandate to go out and negotiate. We don't need to spend $9 million asking referendum questions around that. The courts have already defined it for us. If you say you don't like it…. It's a legal responsibility. We cannot not like it. Mind you, I like it. Even if you didn't like it, you cannot not like it, because it is a legal responsibility that has already been defined in the courts. Don't we just need to go there, learn from that wisdom and knowledge, and take that as the mandate of British Columbia in the treaty-making process?

Yes, treaty-making is a complex question. It is a complex question to determine how Charter rights and aboriginal rights interact. It is a complex question on negotiations and to conclude a treaty in good faith. The fact of the matter is that the province cannot afford not to do that. The province cannot afford not to do that.

When I mentioned the cases around legal rights of aboriginal people, I talked about the lands and resources. In the questions from the Attorney General in this motion that is to go out on a referendum, it actually asks the question. One of the questions is: hunting, fishing and recreational opportunities on Crown land should be ensured for all British Columbians. The other issue relating to resources and land is that parks and protected areas should be maintained for the use and benefit of all British Columbians. Terms and conditions of leases and licences should be respected; fair compensation for unavoidable disruption of commercial interests should be ensured. Provincewide standards of resource management and environmental protection should continue to apply. These are the key questions that deal with the resource and land question in this referendum. I would argue that on all of these questions, the answers and the mandate given to British Columbia have already been defined for us through the history of the courts.

Moreover, when I began my story about aboriginal peoples where people came and took over their bench, the aboriginal people never said — even now, even today, even with the abuse that they had endured…. Even now they're not saying: "I want the whole bench back." Never have I heard any aboriginal leader say that. I have never heard that in the course of my work, in the course of my dealings with the community. They have always said that they're prepared to share those resources in a fair and just way. They've always said that. All they want is for their place in history to be recognized and to be self-sustainable, self-determining and self-governing — all of those things that they enjoyed before people came and took over their bench.

That, too, was recognized in the court. The aboriginal people, to illustrate their hearts, really, on this issue, in the courts…. Here's what, in the Delgamuukw case, the aboriginal people did.

The aboriginal people have been sensitive to ensure that the neighbours who hold land in fee simple are not affected in the efforts to have the Crown recognize and respect their rights. In the Delgamuukw case, here's what they've done. The aboriginal peoples in that litigation exempted fee simple interests from the relief sought in that case. They said, even in a court case, that they would not seek their rights. They're respecting the rights and exempted fee simple interests in their court case. By that action, they demonstrated to all people of all nations that irrespective of the abuse they have experienced and irrespective of their place in history that ought to have been recognized…. They are saying they don't want to take everything back. They are saying that they will respect those rights of people here, and they will share their resources with people.

We ourselves must recognize that there may well be instances whereby a fair settlement would perhaps involve private lands, because they may well have traditional value to the aboriginal people, whether it be for ceremonial or sacred recognition purposes. They could be burial grounds that have significant meaning to the aboriginal people.

We ourselves ought to take on some responsibility and, wherever possible, say: "Absolutely. We would not try to impact private lands and private land owners, but there may be cases where we have to do that." When those cases arise…. And, yes, you go through a negotiation process to engage in the give-and-take exercise to determine whether or not to proceed and, if

so, how much, where and all of those questions that need to be answered through negotiations.

I want to highlight this because I want to say very clearly that the aboriginal people never said: "Get off my land. We're not prepared to share anything with you." When you ask these questions in the referendum about whether hunting and fishing rights and recreational opportunities on Crown land should be ensured for all British Columbians, the aboriginal people themselves have already demonstrated that they're prepared to share. They've already demonstrated that.

One would have thought too — and I think that British Columbians on the whole are individuals who value themselves as being compassionate and fair-minded…. I, too, would imagine that the non-aboriginal people would be prepared to say: "Yes, of course we're prepared to share. Of course we are." Yet these questions are asked on here as if maybe they won't or implying that the aboriginal people want more, when in fact history has demonstrated that they never have.

What is the purpose of this referendum other than to not get an answer? Even if you did get an answer, it doesn't really mean a whole lot from the point of view that the mandate for British Columbia on the question around negotiations has already been clearly set out in the courts.

On all of the resource and land use questions, even on the question around management in environmental protection, the aboriginal people are the first people who would come forward and say: "We would not take more from our land other than what we need to live on it." They need more than anybody else, in my own experience. They want to preserve that land for future generations.

Is there a question on the standard of resource management and environmental protection — that somehow, if the aboriginal people came to have their rights recognized again, the resource management would be at risk? It simply doesn't make any sense at all.

I've touched on some of the referendum questions that are being asked and what, quite frankly, a waste this referendum process is going to be. More to the point, I'd like to illustrate that absent from the referendum would be the questions that I think we need to ask, perhaps, around the mandate to British Columbia — not asked through a referendum, but through discussions, engaging with aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples, and to put that information on the table….

I think this is a critical question for us to try and grapple with — for the province to have and own the obligation to aboriginal peoples, to try and do justice to the aboriginal people. I think that is a critical question that we need to grapple with.

Do we as British Columbians and does the province have an obligation to do justice to the aboriginal people — to do justice to them for over a century where their rights and title have been denied, and where their traditional and ceremonial practices have been condemned and even outlawed? Potlatches, as an example, have been outlawed. Children of the aboriginal community have been taken away from their own homes, brought into residential schools, told that they cannot speak their language and that they must not act Indian and be Indian. I think this is a moral question that we have…. Do we, as individuals who have come as visitors on this land and taken this land as though it was our own, have a moral responsibility, if nothing else, to say yes, we must redress these historical injustices? We must do that now, hon. Chair.

How does the referendum help in the process? The member from Chilliwack has said throughout the consultation…. They've gone through this consultation process, and people did come forward, and there wasn't any of the violence or protests that took place.

I understood that many people actually didn't come because they felt that the question that the government was asking was contrary to their principles. Some people, I know, chose not to participate in that process.

But what is the outfall of this ongoing denial of this government to recognize the mandate that has already been put in place for British Columbia through the courts and through a moral obligation to negotiate within the terms that the courts have already laid out for us? What is that denial? The denial, I think, perhaps only rests with the stubbornness of the Premier and perhaps with some caucus members who refuse even with this clear understanding and historical background of the rights of the aboriginal people…. They will still insist that the aboriginal people don't have these rights and perhaps don't deserve these rights. Maybe that's what's driving the referendum process.

Why do we fear that the referendum process would hinder the economic development, economic progress and social progress for the province? Would it, through this process, send a signal to the aboriginal people that the province is not interested in negotiations and that the province is going to drag its heels in negotiations? I think the referendum is sending that signal.

More than that, through the government's action and through their budget approach, they are sending that signal. They have cancelled the treaty negotiation process unilaterally or set it aside until the referendum is completed. They have taken away resources of negotiators at the treaty-making table. They have taken away the consultative liaisons, if you will — the treaty liaisons that exist in the province with the aboriginal and the non-aboriginal people. Those are all gone. You add all these pieces together, and I think it sends a very strong signal from this Liberal government to aboriginal and non-aboriginal people alike that they are not very interested in negotiating and treaty-making.

Actually, before I go on to that, there is a member — the member for Kamloops–North Thompson, when he was in opposition and was the opposition critic…. I found this research on the Liberal Party's position on the referendum, and, quite frankly, it's shocking. It

says: "Calling first nations doing unauthorized logging 'thieves' should be viewed as words of frustration and not those of a racist." He's calling the aboriginal people — who owned this land first, the first people of this land, who the courts have recognized have the rights to the title and to the resources — thieves, hon. Speaker. This is in the Kamloops This Week newspaper, November 25, 1999.

Then he goes on to say — this is stunning, actually: "Natives instead should be looking at litigation or negotiation. 'I think it's a huge error for aboriginal people to inconvenience or negatively affect the rest of the population and sabotage an already hurting economy,' said Krueger." In this article on August 16 in the Kamloops Daily News, he is accusing the aboriginal people of inconveniencing the broader public. I wonder whether or not the member would think of how much, for over a century, the non-aboriginal people have inconvenienced the aboriginal people. For him to be on record saying that the aboriginal people should just perhaps disappear, should just go away and not bother us, and that when they utilize the resources on the land, the land that they first lived in, somehow they're thieves…. Maybe it's that kind of attitude from the member for Kamloops–North Thompson that's escalated the Premier to continue with this referendum process.

By doing this, what has the province to gain? By sending the signal of instability, by sending out the signal to aboriginals and non-aboriginals alike that this government is not interested in treaty-making, how does that help?

Since that time these are some of the things that are happening and that have repercussions for British Columbia economically and socially. In June 2001 the First Nations Summit gave warning that if the Liberal government went ahead with a treaty referendum, there would be repercussions.

On August 24, 2001, the Esquimalt and Songhees first nations claimed ownership of the land on which the province's Legislature sits. I quote: "Two small B.C. Indian bands filed a lawsuit Friday claiming ownership of the land on which the province's Legislature sits. The Esquimalt and Songhees bands are asking the B.C. Supreme Court for unspecified damages and a declaration that the province is a trespasser on the land and that both the federal and provincial governments have breached their duty to protect the bands' interests." That was August 24, 2001. It was reported in the Vancouver Sun on August 25, 2001.

The 15-page claim, which includes the ground under the Premier's office and covers 4.2 hectares fronting the capital city's inner harbour, is based on an 1850 treaty that the present bands' forebears signed with the Hudson's Bay Company factor and the colonial Governor, Sir James Douglas.

I believe, because of the government's reluctance and insistence on not sending a signal to the aboriginal people that we want to engage in good-faith negotiations with them, that perhaps some of these claims are now escalating. We're seeing more and more of those appearing before the courts, even though the courts have said: "Government, go and negotiate. It is your responsibility to do that. It should not be through litigation that these matters are dealt with. It should be through negotiation." This process that the Liberal government has insisted on, by delaying treaty negotiation opportunities, has escalated to more litigation in the courts.

On August 29, 2001, two energy companies pulled out of the northeastern part of the province because of unresolved land claims. I quote the editorial in the Sun, August 29, 2001:

If the government is interested in economic stability and inviting investment, then the number one thing they must put their energy and resources into is negotiation, not to cancel and delete funding of the negotiation team in this budget that's been introduced. It's not to decrease consultation and community liaison on aboriginal rights to ensure that people are kept in the loop and that the consultation takes place.

It's not to waste $9 million — I'm counting, because I think that amount's going to increase — on a referendum and a set of referendum questions on which British Columbia already has the mandate to legally act. We have a legal mandate to act, and the terms of those actions for the negotiation process are clearly defined in the courts. No. This government refuses to acknowledge that, and they are, in my view, wasting $9 million of the taxpayers' hard-earned money in this exercise.

Then we have March 6, 2002. The Haida first nation launches a lawsuit. On March 6, 2002, the Haida initiated a lawsuit against the provincial and federal governments, saying that the first nations have aboriginal title not only to all the land contained within the Charlottes, which they call the Haida Gwaii, but also to the resources in and under the sea, including oil and gas reserves believed to be under Hecate Strait. The writ was filed by lawyers Joe Arvay and Louise Mandell, simply seeking a declaration that the Haida are the aboriginal owners of the entire remote area of the north coast of B.C. and that all of the activities within those lands that are incompatible with the Haida should cease. They also want an accounting of all profits, taxes, stumpage, dues, royalties and other benefits that the province and the federal government have collected over the years.

The Haida initiated their lawsuit in part to try to stop the provincial Liberal government's apparent plan to lift a moratorium on oil and gas exploration in Hecate Strait.

Then on March 7, 2002, the Tsawwassen first nation laid claim to the Roberts Bank superport and the B.C.

Ferries terminal. The Tsawwassen band has launched a lawsuit to shut down the giant Roberts Bank superport and the B.C. Ferries terminal. The Tsawwassen band filed its lawsuit last Thursday, just one day after the Haida nation won a landmark court decision that most lawyers concede could alter B.C.'s economic and political landscape.

These are just some of the cases that have surfaced. Will there be more to come? I would hazard a guess: yes. If this government continues to drag its heels, continues to refuse to engage in a negotiation process, yes, I think that we'll see more and more cases appear in the courts and that the approach of litigation instead of negotiation will be sought by the aboriginal people. Quite frankly, they have waited over a century to move forward only to find in 2002 that they are faced with a major setback because of this Liberal government's principles, because of this Liberal government's action.

One may say: "Perhaps it's just you who are in opposition that would say these things; nobody else will. Opposition always rises up and speaks against the government, no matter what." You know what? Most of the people, the majority of the people, have spoken against the government's action — even if they're supporters of the Liberal Party.

In Business in Vancouver, December 4, 2001, a column was written by Peter Ladner: "B.C. Liberals' referendum on native land claims should be scrapped for commonsense reasons." I'll just read one paragraph of this article into the record: "By the time you read this, the B.C. Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations should have received a report on the wording of his government's proposed referendum on native land claims. If only the report could make this simple statement" — and if only the government today, now, would understand and adopt this approach —" sometimes it's better to break promises than to keep them." That is from Peter Ladner's column in Business in Vancouver.

I spoke of — and I know that my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings has spoken of — the promises broken by this government. There's a whole litany of broken promises. "We will not rip up collective agreements. We will not rip up contracts." They ripped up contracts. The broken promise: "We will not impose a tax." They've imposed a tax. They've imposed a provincial sales tax of 7 percent to 7½ percent. The property tax and the fuel tax are imposed taxes: broken promise No. 2. Broken promise No. 3: tax cuts will pay for themselves, when tax cuts don't pay for themselves. Broken promise No. 4: they would only give tax breaks to the two lowest income brackets. They gave tax breaks to the highest income brackets, the wealthiest British Columbians, the biggest corporations. I can go on literally all day to talk about the promises broken by the Liberal government.

This is one promise that I wish they would break: not to proceed with the referendum and to proceed with treaty negotiations. It isn't just me who wishes that; many, many people wish that to happen.

What did the federal government, who really have a huge responsibility on this question, say about the government's referendum proposal? I'll just read part of the federal government's position into the record:

This is a statement from the federal government's Robert Nault, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Then it goes on to say:

These are excerpts from an article by Cara McGregor at the University of Victoria.

On July 26, 2001, in the Globe and Mail it was reported that the federal government has recently expressed its opposition to such a referendum. "Treaty-making in British Columbia is a tripartite process involving aboriginal groups, the B.C. government and the federal government. Robert Nault, Minister of the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, argues that the treaty process is the best process there is and therefore that the federal government has committed itself to proceed with negotiations."

So the federal government has said that the best process is through negotiations. Academic scholars have said that the best process is through negotiations and that the referendum should be scrapped. Business leaders have said that the referendum should be scrapped. Even the media have said that the referendum process should be scrapped.

Vaughn Palmer, March 17, 2001 — and he uses the name: "Mr. Campbell isn't proposing to hold a referendum on native rights, which are, in any event, recognized in the constitution. He's saying the referendum will deal with the bargaining mandate in the treaty negotiations on native land claims. I think that would be an act of bad faith, given that the province has been involved in treaty negotiations for the better part of a decade."

John Winter, president of B.C. Chamber of Commerce, April 26, 2001. Here's what he had to say. He also believes that the Liberals need to place a higher priority on settling native land claims. The proposed provincewide referendum on the issue could end up simply delaying the process, he warned, and business needs certainty.

The litany of objections to the government's referendum is lengthy, and I have stacks and stacks of third-party validators who say that, whether they be from the media, the academic arena, the business community or the aboriginal community. I think that we have often heard various aboriginal leaders who've come forward and challenged the government on its approach. Here's what the chief of the First Nations Summit, Chief Bill Wilson, has to say about the treaty process: "We think it's a stupid, morally repugnant, illegitimate process." Then he goes on to say, when asked about referendums: "Rob power from powerless people and put it in the hands of those people with the money to buy newspaper and TV ads and intimidate people into voting their way."

George Watts: "Ninety percent of the population doesn't own anything; the 10 percent white people own everything in South Africa. They own it because they've stolen it from the black people. That's what this reminds me of. Now that you've stolen our country, you want equality."

These are just some of the comments that have been made by various community leaders. In fact, most recently, on a website there is a proposal — a petition, if you will — to ask those British Columbians who wish to join with other British Columbians and vote no to the referendum process and to propose that negotiations are the route to go with the first nations. So far, on this website, over 4,000 people have put their name, their address and their affiliations, etc., onto this to send a signal.

Nine million dollars on a referendum process — what will that yield to British Columbia? The ballots are being mailed out to each of the different houses. Let's just think about the validity in the process of this mail-out ballot itself. There will be no scrutineers involved in this process. I suppose anybody who picked up the mail-in ballot could mark the ballot in any way, shape or form that they want, even if the ballot may not be mailed to them. It could be mailed to the previous owner or the person who lived in that residence prior to that. There is no monitoring in the voting process at all. I suspect that a lot of people will simply disregard the mail-in ballot.

How will that process somehow be a valid process? How will the government count the people who find this process repugnant, as Bill Wilson has said? How will they count those people who decide to boycott this process, who say that they fundamentally disagree with this process, and therefore they will not participate in this process and will boycott this process? How will the government recognize the voice of the people who take this principled position on aboriginal issues? There's no opportunity whatsoever.

If the government is sincere that they actually want to ensure that negotiation is the way to go and that treaty-making actually begins for this province under this new regime, then government ought to redirect those dollars to consultation, to negotiation and to bringing back negotiators who are to do that work and bringing the aboriginal people to the table as opposed to alienating them. Government ought to engage in the process and send signals to community leaders all across British Columbia to say to them that this government wants stability and wants certainty.

The court cases that are springing up here, there and everywhere…. Government needs to send a signal that litigation is not the way to go and that they're sincere in the process of negotiations. What the government has done illustrates that they're not sincere at all. The referendum process is not a sincere attempt to ensure that negotiations do in fact take place in British Columbia.

I will close with a couple of other items I want to put on the record. This is very interesting to me, because it is a letter that has been written by someone in Victoria who wrote a letter to the Vancouver Sun editor. I'm not sure if it got printed or not. This person e-mailed me this letter as well. I thought it was a very good letter, so I'd like to put it on the record. It says:

This is a letter from a constituent, somebody in this riding in the Victoria constituency, and that is their view of the referendum.

I have come across many people in my constituency and outside of my constituency. I was just in Williams Lake last weekend, and people in the northern part of British Columbia, in the Cariboo Chilcotin, said to me that it behooves them…. If they want to talk to an MLA or if they need to talk to an MLA, they have to invite someone from the lower mainland to come. On the issue around aboriginal issues, they said to me that the government needs to engage in negotiations, not litigation, and not send a signal that will fuel litigation. The referendum process is one that is offensive, to put it mildly, to the people who made the presentation to me in Williams Lake.

When I go and talk to the people in my community, they cannot believe that the government is going to waste $9 million, and counting, on the referendum process. They're saying those moneys should be redirected. If government is so short of money for education, then they should put those moneys into education. If they're so tight on money for health care, then they should put those moneys into health care. For economic development from the resource sectors, the communities that are hurting right now because of the resource sector downturn…. They should be putting those moneys into economic development in those communities.

This is what the community members are saying to me. It simply makes no sense. It makes zero sense — what this government is doing. They're asking for a mandate which has already been defined legally by courts. Moreover, government has a moral responsibility to address the aboriginal issues through negotiations.

We should look back at the lessons learned through the Nisga'a treaty — the treaty that was taken out of the Treaty Commission process but, nonetheless, the first modern treaty in the province. Look at the lessons there and engage in good faith. Do not break a trilateral, tripartite arrangement that has been set in place with the federal government, the provincial government and the aboriginal peoples. Do not unilaterally break that principle by simply moving forward and halting the treaty-making process, then launching this, quite frankly — the word of Bill Wilson — "stupid" referendum in that process. Do not engage in this exercise.

The government needs to recognize that it has an opportunity to take a leadership role. That leadership role does not rest on setting the clock back. It's about moving forward. It's about ensuring that there are treaties, and the process of treaty-making in British Columbia is to ensure that there is a future of stability and certainty and to take this issue away from the court system.

I think there are some members on the government bench who understand the legal arguments that I have presented in this House. I think there are some members, perhaps, in this government who understand the moral obligation that we as British Columbians have on this issue. I look over to the member for Vancouver-Langara. I know that in his heart he understands the moral and legal responsibility on this issue. I would ask him to demonstrate his understanding by voting against this motion, to send a clear signal that this government's approach is the wrong approach, and it does not help — in fact, it hinders — treaty-making.

I would urge any member from the government bench who might have been here and shared that moment when Dr. Gosnell was at the bar of this House…. He spoke to all members of this House, recounting his history, his stories and the moment he's worked for all of his life — the moment that his predecessors had worked for — finally having achieved a modern-day treaty, and what it means for them, their community and all British Columbians.

The treaty process is the way to go. The referendum process is not. The referendum process, I have to say, fails to acknowledge the issues around self-determination for aboriginal people, fails to acknowledge their past self-governing practices, fails to acknowledge that the aboriginal people were the first people of this land. In this day and age, it is now time for us to move forward and settle treaty land claims.

I will wrap up my comments with the clear understanding that I am going to vote against the government's motion. I urge the government members to vote against this motion, as well, to recognize the history of British Columbia, to recognize the history of aboriginal people and say to the aboriginal people: "We are united and standing in solidarity with you, to redress the historical injustices that have been foisted against you, the abuse that you have taken." It is time to move on for a new chapter with this government; move on with a new chapter of certainty, fairness and, most important of all, respect — respect in recognizing the rights of the first people of this land and engaging in negotiations.

M. Hunter: This debate — or at least its subject, the proposed referendum questions — represents, in my view, a very important milestone in the history of the development of the relationship amongst British Columbians of different racial, geographic backgrounds and origins.

I was honoured last year to be selected to be a member of the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and to travel the province to hear what other British Columbians had to say about the issue of how we get on with the business of being British Columbians, with equal opportunity for every man, woman and child.

Not surprisingly, the committee heard many different positions. Mostly, they were eloquently expressed, and most urged a solution to the vexing problem of how we acknowledge and deal with our history — how we deal with our history in a way that allows this province and all of its people to move forward to capture the huge potential of this land.

One of the reasons that I sought election — and there are many reasons — was that I believed that government had little legitimacy for the positions it was taking with respect to treaty negotiations. For almost ten years I witnessed close at hand, through my membership on the Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee, the interests of so-called third parties to the negotiations treated with less than honesty and respect by government. These third parties are the working people and the businesses of this province, and in my view they deserve better.

Much has been said about certainty around land claims and the negotiation and treaty process. It is a certainty, in my view, that unless we have the support of the people of this province, treaties will simply not provide the basis for the common future that I believe we are all, in our own way, seeking.

During the period before I came to this place, I watched the interests of the constituency for which I worked — the B.C. seafood industry — manipulated and diminished. I observed the cavalier treatment of historic rights and common property resources by the government of Canada, all in the name of treaty settlements. I've seen lip service paid to the views of honest, hard-working, volunteer advisers by governments which had little time for opinions other than their own. It's little wonder that many people in my riding have viewed the exercise of treaty negotiations with so much suspicion and cynicism, and they continue to do that right to this day.

This referendum offers the promise of changing that perception — and not just the perception, but the reality — and moving the process of treaty-making forward. The people of this province are being offered the opportunity to decide the important principles on which their future will be based. I've always said that unless there are excellent reasons to the contrary, it is usually good that public business be done in public to the maximum extent practical. This referendum meets that test. The referendum is not the end of the process, but it is the beginning of a new start in which every one of can have confidence.

I've been involved with personal and business relationships with a number of aboriginal people and organizations over the years. I can say on that basis, with some authority, that the referendum questions being proposed are not all-inclusive. For example, the proposed questions are fewer in number than those set out by the select standing committee, but I believe that the essential intent of the committee, which reflected the opinions of the committee's witnesses, are preserved in this motion.

The proposed questions, in some cases, appear to convey a restrictive interpretation of the authority of the province of British Columbia. I want to refer to one particular example. The proposed question 3 says: "Hunting, fishing and recreational opportunities on Crown land should be ensured for all British Columbians."

With my background in the fishing community, I can assure this House that fishing takes place in this province in many places other than just on Crown land. The entire coastal and tidal fisheries in British Columbia take place in accordance with the rights established in the Magna Carta of 1215. These rights, which appear and are recognized under the British North America Act, the Constitution Act and the common law of Canada, are managed by the federal Crown.

But the rights, so exercised, are in the nature of civil and property rights. They are rights that are the domain and constitutional responsibility of the province, so it is legitimate to ask why the referendum question that directly pertains to fishing would not seek to establish the public's guidance on the principles that should underlie British Columbia's approach to the treatment of these historic rights during treaty negotiations.

This issue has caused me considerable grounds for pause. I would find it difficult indeed to contemplate a question that, on its face, might be construed as minimizing British Columbia's interest in or responsibility for fishing rights.

There may be members of the public who ask that same question, members of the public who have looked to this government to protect their historic rights, in contrast to the position taken by the previous government or, in the view of many, by the government of Canada. I want to say to those people that while the referendum may be appear to be silent on addressing those concerns, it is important that question 3 be construed in the light of the prior and solemn commitments of this government with respect to property rights, access to commerce and the right to fish.

Our election platform clearly spelled out our position that we would fully protect private property rights and resource tenure rights. As a party and as a government, we have made clear our opposition to the establishment of fisheries where access to commerce is dependent upon race. Those principles are ones that do not need the endorsement of the public again at this

time. They are principles on which this government's views are clear, as they are clear on certainty, finality and equality. I am therefore satisfied that the proposed question 3, when construed in the context of the previously stated views of this government, is an appropriate question.

I was fortunate as a child and a youth to be brought up in a family where race and religion were considered unimportant in how we assessed the character of our fellow men. I was taught the importance and value of tolerance of and respect for my fellow man. Those values were very clearly reflected during the hearings of this select standing committee.

I'm pleased to say that the tolerance of British Columbians for often strongly stated and opposing views provides an extremely strong foundation for treaty-making. In my opinion, the tolerance and respect that British Columbians show to each other, along with the set of prior government commitments and principles that will be endorsed by the people and binding on this government, will allow us to develop treaties that will stand the test of time. It is on that basis, Mr. Speaker, that I wish to indicate my support for the motion of the Attorney General.

R. Hawes: I rise today to speak in favour of the motion brought forward by the Attorney General. My comments are going to be very, very brief and, I hope, with some meaning.

I had the opportunity to serve on the Fraser Valley treaty advisory committee for the five years immediately preceding my election to this House. Throughout that period there were negotiations going on with several native groups, including the Stó:lô, the Yale band and the In-SHUCK-ch N'Quat'qua peoples.

In the year 2000 a settlement was made to the In-SHUCK-ch N'Quat'qua, who had entered jointly into negotiation. The settlement offer contained both cash and land and was, we thought at the treaty advisory committee, a fairly substantial and very good offer. But the In-SHUCK-ch N'Quat'qua voted that offer down. They refused to accept it. So, to assist the treaty advisory committee in understanding why that offer had been turned down, a number of us — the current mayor of Chilliwack, Mayor Hames, and myself and the head of the Lillooet regional district went to Pemberton to visit with the In-SHUCK-ch N'Quat'qua peoples to ask them why they had turned down the offer.

We wanted to know what had gone wrong. What we learned directly from the people was of great interest and a real surprise. We were told by In-SHUCK-ch N'Quat'qua that they had not voted down the settlement. They had in fact voted against the treaty process. They told us they had voted against the process because they didn't really understand it. They didn't understand it and had no faith in it because they had not felt included in the process as it progressed. They felt left out, and they were fearful of the decisions that were going to be made and that would have changed their lives forever.

The enemy of ignorance is knowledge, and the enemy of fear is empowerment and inclusion. I believe that the referendum process that we're putting forward now provides an opportunity for discussion and the development of knowledge. I also believe that this referendum process will empower and include British Columbians in the advancement of treaty-making. That is essential for this process to proceed in the way we all want it to proceed.

Just as it is critical for the aboriginal communities to be fully engaged in forming the principles of treaty-making and to be fully engaged, it's also important for the non-aboriginal communities. The aboriginal communities, the In-SHUCK-ch and the N'Quat'qua peoples, refused a process that didn't include them. What we're doing here is advancing a negotiation process that will include people. This has nothing to do with constitutionality, and it has absolutely nothing to do with slowing or stopping a process. In fact, it has everything to do with accelerating a process and moving it forward in a way that the people of this province, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal, will accept.

Once the treaty process is finished, post-treaty, every community is going to have to live shoulder to shoulder, aboriginal and non-aboriginal together, and the success and the way that we live together will depend on how included we all feel in the process. The referendum allows that to happen. It forms principles on which proper treaty-making can proceed. For that reason, I'm proud to stand in support of the motion, and I would urge the two members of the opposition to think very seriously about what they're saying and the rhetoric they're using. I would really hope they understand that this about including people and advancing a process that's long overdue.

J. MacPhail: I rise with a great deal of sadness and disappointment today to vote against this motion and to do whatever I can as a New Democrat, along with my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, to respectfully ridicule this referendum. I will spend as much time as I possibly can to protect the province against the dire consequences of this referendum.

The Attorney General rose in the House earlier and said that the negotiation process is a political process. I say: you bet it's a political process that has become, as of today with this referendum, a political process that is now fraught with confusion, denial of reality and stubborn ideology that forms the underpinnings of this Liberal provincial government's action around treaty-making.

How did we get here? How is that we as British Columbians have a provincial Liberal government who is putting British Columbians in this perilous position? I want to make it clear that I will say the provincial Liberal government, because the federal Liberal government disagrees vehemently with this referendum, so we must be careful to distinguish that my critical comments that have "Liberal" attached to them refer specifically to this provincial Liberal government.

How did we get here? The now provincial Liberal Party has flip-flopped on this issue over the course of the last decade all on the basis of politics — not on the basis of what's good for the economy or what's right for first nations but strictly because of politics. I can claim no credit for this history, but I agree with it 100 percent — which will be, knowing the author, an exceptional admission on my part. Vaughn Palmer outlined the history of how we got here as a province by the provincial Liberal Party playing politics with the issue of referendum. It's all well articulated in a column by Mr. Palmer on April 7, 2001.

I continue to quote from Mr. Palmer: "The Liberals formed a common opposition front with the Reform MLA and issued two dozen joint recommendations, one of which now raised the referendum issue."

I quote from that report: "No treaty, including the Nisga'a treaty, should be introduced into the Legislature for debate or final ratification until a majority of B.C. voters have given their expressed approval by a provincewide referendum into either the final agreement or a comprehensive mandate for all future treaties."

"Having found common ground on one of the biggest issues separating them, the Liberals and Reform proceeded to move closer together, though none dared call it a backroom deal." Mr. Palmer goes on to say:

Rarely have I found myself in agreement with many of the media, but that is an astute analysis of why we find ourselves here today: ideology, political opportunism — nothing to do with principle. Virtually everyone in this province has said, "Don't do it," to the Premier — "Don't hold a referendum" — including those who presented to the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs.

My colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and I, after very careful thought and consultation with stakeholders around this province, realized that the legislative committee on aboriginal affairs was a sham and that the government would proceed to a referendum regardless of public input. Secondly, we believed that the referendum's scope would be determined in the Premier's office, not by any legislative committee. Today we stand here together to be proven correct on both points.

After $1 million of taxpayer money that the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs spent travelling the province, here's what really happened. The vast majority of presenters during that $1 million exercise told the Liberal MLAs sitting on that committee: "Do not hold a referendum." The vast majority of those presenters — well over half — said specifically: "Don't hold a referendum."

Next, what do we find? The Premier's office, as we predicted, ignored the committee recommendations and wrote their own set of questions. We cannot ignore the fact that this referendum is politically motivated in the most blatantly partisan way possible and that it's being completely run out of the Premier's office. The Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs did not reflect in any way the input that they received from the presenters.

Mr. Speaker, we can't look at this referendum in isolation. My colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant just gave a dispassionate, articulate, extremely well-thought-out presentation on why this referendum is the wrong direction to go. I'm afraid I can't be as well reasoned or as dispassionate as my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. Her remarks completely contradicted the Attorney General in his assertion that

this is the correct legal or democratic way to go. Let me give the political arguments on why this is so bad for British Columbia.

The referendum is only part of the agenda of this government to destroy the treaty-making process. The treaty-making process is being undermined each and every day, as we speak, by other actions being taken by this Premier. Treaty negotiations have been shut down for the last ten months — completely shut down. Yet these Liberal MLAs would say: "Oh well, they didn't work for the last ten years." That's simply wrongheaded — to put a time line on success. Agreements-in-principle were reached, and they weren't ratified. We know from current actions by this government that if they don't get their way in negotiations, they like to just end the process, the way they just did with doctors.

That's what they're doing here as well. They're saying, "Well, you've had ten years," whereas first nations would say: "Well, we've actually been working at it for 130 years." "You've had ten years, and you haven't had any success. We don't like the process. We're going to put it to bed." That's what this government is doing with this referendum. They're doing all sorts of actions around this referendum to kill the treaty-making process and to make British Columbians upset with and suspicious of the treaty-making process.

You know, I heard the Liberal MLAs earlier this week stand up and laud the provincial congress process that the Premier conducted at the end of February. What they failed to say in their reports was that community leader after community leader stood up and said, in a very polite and respectful way: "We have concerns about the actions of your government, Mr. Premier. We're very concerned about the off-loading that you're doing on us, and we want to have consultation on these matters."

The mayor of Nanaimo, known to be a supporter of this government — fair enough — rose during the provincial congress and asked the Attorney General directly: "You have cancelled funding for treaty negotiation advisory committees that allowed us municipal councils input into the treaty-making process. What are you doing to replace it?"

The Attorney General didn't answer his questions. He said: "Trust me. I'll replace it with something." Well, I'm actually not sure he even went that far. He said, "Trust me," but the treaty negotiation advisory committees have had the funding cut right out from underneath them.

It's very interesting to look at the remarks of the Attorney General when he says: "We don't need to put this matter to the questions. The advice that we received from the select standing committee on making sure the process will be as transparent as possible and that treaty negotiations will be responsive to the input of local community and economic interests and that local government participation in the treaty process is guaranteed…."

The Attorney General rejected those recommendations, because he'd already cut the legs out from underneath those three recommendations. He has ended the treaty negotiation advisory committees. Oh, I bet you the Attorney General will rush in and say: "Oh, no, no. They can carry on with their advisory committees. We're just not going to help them, we're not going to guarantee them any access, and we ain't going to help them fund it locally." That's right. Oh, that's a good guarantee.

And yes, this government has also cut 74 treaty negotiators from the budget. Oh, there's good news. That's a really positive signal, isn't it? It's a really positive signal that this government is committed to the treaty-making process. For ten months it's been shut down; we're now in several more months' delay while the referendum process is going on. You know what I bet? I bet that after the referendum is completed, the government will say: "Oh, I'm sorry. We can't possibly start up the treaty-making process again. We don't have any negotiators." What do you want to bet? Okay, I'm going to make that prediction, Mr. Speaker.

Also, the government has been expanding export permits right on the very lands that are under the treaty-making process, expanding log exports like we've never seen before. I specifically asked the first nations leaders in the northwest corner of our province whether they had been consulted when the government brought in and put through an unlimited guarantee of raw log exports at the level of 35 percent in the northwest corner of this province. Unheard of — an ongoing guarantee.

The first nations leader said, "Well, no, we hadn't been consulted on that," but he was so respectful of his community, unlike this government's lack of respect for this first nations leader, that he said: "We understand the pressures our community is under, and we understand the difficult circumstances our community faces." He didn't mean the first nations community alone; he meant the regional pressures.

They've also guaranteed, through the Premier and through the Minister of Finance, that they're going to proceed with offshore oil and gas exploration regardless of treaty-making. Now, the Minister of Finance skates off to Alberta, his ideological homeland, to make that announcement so that the Haida have to hear it via reports from Alberta that this government is going to go ahead with offshore oil and gas exploration. What choice did the Haida have other than to go to court, given the Minister of Finance's statement?

Let me also refer to another document that has had no review or very little discussion in this chamber. Some of these documents are leaked — well, in fact, all of them have been leaked — but many of them have been discussed in public now. There are a couple of things here that perhaps we haven't concentrated on completely.

Let me just tell you why first nations are extremely distrustful of this government and this government's commitment to treaty-making. Even now, as we speak,

this government knows full well it's proceeding, by their own words, with actions that will override the province's requirement — legal, moral, economic requirement — to consult with the first nations.

This is a document from the environmental assessment office. It's a document that comes from the deputy minister. It's a review of all the actions that are being proposed by this current Liberal government to change the way our land base is regulated. It's very detailed. It asks: who is affected directly, and is the proposed elimination — we're talking about regulation — contentious? Then it analyzes it.

Let me give you one example. This is why first nations do not trust this government to keep its word. Reviewable projects regulation is the topic; it's under the Environmental Assessment Act:

Gosh. I guess the Attorney General didn't want to talk about that in terms of their respect for first nations.

Next, this is from the Ministry of Energy and Mines core review — a secret document, I must say. My colleague and I have asked over and over again for these documents. "No, no, they can't be revealed." Ministry of Energy and Mines core review item: "Review ministry first nations consultation guidelines relative to exploration activity." It's right on topic — first nations consultation guidelines relative to exploration activity. "Impact: streamlining. Affected parties: first nations and the mining industry. Anticipated reaction: first nations — negative; mining industry — positive." Oh, there's a government committed to first nations equality and involvement in an open and accountable process.

Next item, same document: "Include valuation of subsurface resources in treaty settlement." Whoa. There's a pretty major item. "Responsibility: the treaty negotiation office. Impact: affects land base. Affected parties: treaty negotiation office, government, federal government. Anticipated reaction: treaty negotiation office — some opposition; government — unknown; federal government — some opposition." There's what first nations can expect from this government in the future.

The Attorney General said in his remarks that he was committed to the 19 principles. That's what he said. Let me read this to you, because this is really interesting. He said that he embraces the 19 principles. Well, here's what he said: "This government has consistently affirmed its support for each of the 19 recommendations of the task force. Those 19 recommendations were actually turned into negotiation principles." Then what does he do? He goes on to say: "The task force's second recommendation is also important in today's debate. This recommendation is that each of the parties to the treaty process be at liberty to introduce any items at the negotiating table that it views as significant to the new relationship."

Then he goes on to deliberately misinterpret that principle by saying that that gives him free scope to introduce any change he wishes to the other 18 principles. That was not the intent of that principle, and that Attorney General knows full well. The intent of that principle was to say that any issues concerning the other 18 given principles can be introduced at the table, that they cannot be further limited beyond those 18, plus this principle.

Now the Attorney General uses that as a reason, as an argument to say that he embraces the 19 principles. I'm sure the first nations feel as if they're being hugged only so that the Premier can get better physical leverage to bring them to their knees.

What will the referendum resolve? Nothing. The short answer is nothing. My colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant did a very, very thoughtful presentation on why this referendum resolves nothing.

Turnout? Voter turnout ? we're doing it under the Referendum Act; it doesn't matter. There could be 50 percent-plus-one of 25 percent of the voters. Fifty percent of 25 percent ? tough, I know, for some members to figure out, but that's like about 12½ percent of the voting population. You know, that's not to be unheard of.

Municipal elections in the area where I live have a turnout of around 25 percent. In most parts of the province it's lower than that ? absolutely lower than that. But this government says it's binding; it's going to be binding. They're going to have a referendum with no guarantee of a majority turnout, so we have a very real potential of the minority of this province speaking as if they're speaking for the majority, judging minority rights. This government thinks that's just fine.

Court challenges. As my colleague pointed out, in the last days we've seen a raft of very substantive court challenges. I join with my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant in predicting there will be an escalation of those court actions, especially since first nations now know that this government has no intent to consult. We see it from their leaked documents.

Mail-in ballot? Why is it that such an experiment in democracy, an experiment of a mail-in ballot, is being conducted at this ever so important juncture? Why is it that this provincial Liberal government slashed the funding for the independent chief electoral officer, as did the Premier, and then asked the chief electoral officer to conduct a complex, completely untested mail-in ballot? Is that perhaps by design? Should we be suspicious about that?

Is the slashing of the funding of the independent chief electoral officer perhaps by design to ensure a mail-in ballot that doesn't allow for full participation? How will it work?

From April 2 to May 15, balloting will take place. Are there new rules on voter registration? That period of time for an election is unheard of. Never before have

we had six weeks in this province for casting of ballots. How does one exercise one's right to vote regardless of being on the voters list? Unless this government's planning to change the law, that's exactly what is the guaranteed right, right now.

Here's one. I bet you this is absolutely irrelevant to the current government. But you know what? Under our Elections Act now, the homeless have a right to vote. How are the homeless going to vote — a mail-in ballot? How are we possibly going to give the homeless — I should say those without a permanent address — the right to vote? They have the right to vote now. Who's at fault if a vote is cast fraudulently?

What if Canada Post isn't up to the job? What provisions have been made with Canada Post to ensure that they're up to the job? That is a question that has been completely ignored by this government.

Section 3 of the Referendum Act leaves it up to cabinet whether they announce the spoiled ballots. Will they be announcing the spoiled ballots? Let them come clean today and say: "Yes, we will report the spoiled ballots."

This provincial government knows full well that first nations have said that they will respectfully abstain from the process. They have made that announcement right now, and yet members of this Liberal government stand up and say: "Oh, this is good for first nations, and they should feel confident in this process." Well, if so, let this government rise today and say: "Under the Referendum Act we will exercise our right as a cabinet to report every single spoiled ballot that was cast." In fact, the Referendum Act doesn't even acknowledge a direct-mail ballot. Let this government bring forward a legal opinion to show how a mail-in ballot is legally binding.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. member, I must point out that your time has expired. Please wrap up your comments.

This referendum does nothing to enhance our economy. It does nothing to enhance bringing about justice for first nations. It doesn't bring about fairness for any British Columbians.

British Columbians, I urge you to ridicule this referendum in every imaginable, creative way you can. We now know that our Premier is stubbornly immune to reason.

J. MacPhail: Perhaps ridiculing him is the only wake-up call left for us as British Columbians.

Hon. G. Campbell: I am pleased to rise today in support of the principles that will be put to the people by referendum in the province of British Columbia in the coming weeks. These are this government's principles, but this is the people's decision in British Columbia. I deeply hope that when votes are counted, this will be British Columbia's mandate for negotiating treaties that work for all British Columbians — aboriginal British Columbians and non-aboriginal British Columbians alike.

Over the last months since this government was sworn into office, we have worked to put in place a new relationship between aboriginal and non-aboriginal British Columbians, between the government of British Columbia and aboriginal people across this province.

I have heard the voices of aboriginal people. I understand their frustration. I understand their concern. I understand the fact that they have spent millions and millions of dollars, and the results of the treaty negotiation process to date have been nought. Not one treaty has been signed after hundred of millions of dollars have been invested. Month after month after month aboriginal leaders as well as provincial and federal negotiators have been at the table, and yet there are no results.

Of course aboriginal leaders are going to be frustrated, and I understand that aboriginal leaders are opposed to this suggestion of our government that we go to the people of British Columbia for a referendum. I understand the history that makes them opposed and the concerns they may have, but I want every aboriginal person in this province to understand that this government is committed to creating workable, affordable treaties that create certainty, equality and finality for all British Columbians so we can build a new era of hope and prosperity across this province for everyone that lives here.

Aboriginal communities have been betrayed by governments in the past, and I want aboriginal leaders to understand this: we have a shared agenda in many, many areas of endeavour. This government, for the first time in years, hosted all members of the First Nations Summit and asked them to come together with cabinet so we could discuss how we can improve the lot of their people's lives today — not following the conclusion of a treaty, but today. We recognize that aboriginal leaders want for the people in their first nations the same things we want for the people we serve in the province of British Columbia: health care that works for them; education that gives their children an opportunity to build a future that they can count on, depend on and be excited by; and economic opportunities for all. We are committed to helping aboriginal communities and leaders meet those objectives in British Columbia, hon. Speaker.

With that in mind, I have been having regular meetings with representatives of the first nations task group, and we have talked about health care. I have met with Premiers; I have met with the Prime Minister; I have met with the federal Minister of Health. At every meeting we have had we said that the aboriginal people of this province are being failed by the delivery of health services. It is time to bring resources to the table. It is time to bring expertise to the table. It is time

to give the aboriginal communities of British Columbia the health care they deserve. The aboriginal leadership is working with us. They are working with us because we have a shared commitment.

We met with the first nations task group on education. You know, there are few areas where we have done as badly as in education for aboriginal young people. We cannot sit in this chamber and represent the people of British Columbia and not recognize that we have an enormous task ahead of us: to work with aboriginal leaders and aboriginal communities to make sure aboriginal young people get the education they need delivered in a way that works for them — not that fits into our mould but that works for them — that recognizes their history and their past, that recognizes their needs so that they can have the educational tools they need to pursue any walk of life they want. Be it in the health professions, education or science and research, be it in the resource, technology or tourism industries, we want aboriginal young people to have the same hopes and dreams — and know they can realize them in British Columbia — as every other young person in this province.

Very early in our term, in our first financial statement, we doubled the First Citizens Fund to $72 million. We went to aboriginal leaders and said to them: "You tell us how we can use this resource for the benefit of aboriginal people across this province." We have committed, for the first time in the history of the province, to host an annual first citizens forum that would allow us to work with aboriginal people, both on and off reserve, to make sure we are meeting their needs and servicing the concerns they have.

This is the first government I am aware of in British Columbia that has two ministers who are committed to meeting the needs of aboriginal communities and citizens across this province. This government is a government that intends to keep our word to aboriginal people, just as we've kept our word to the people of the province of British Columbia.

Let me be clear. Our commitment, our resolve to negotiate treaties, is not up for debate in this House today. We are committed to negotiating treaties, and our commitment is not a question. We will work and move forward to negotiate treaties regardless of the outcome of this referendum. We recognize the frustration and the exclusion that have been felt by many British Columbians across this province, who want to participate in the constructive development of building a new relationship between aboriginal people and British Columbians that's an example for others to behold. That's our commitment.

Let me say a couple of things about the people that are constantly saying we should exclude British Columbians from this discussion. There's a certain segment in our society that always seems to know best. We should never go out and ask the people of the province what their values are, what their goals are, how they can help us work in this important, critical endeavour that is before us — this critical endeavour that has escaped the grasp of all of us, regardless of political party, over the last ten years.

Aboriginal rights and title are not on the ballot. They are not up for debate. This government will be consistently pursuing agreements and treaties that are within the constitution of Canada, and aboriginal rights and title are in the constitution of Canada. We will not even think of endeavouring to change those. Those that suggest we do are not trying to build a new relationship. They are trying to undermine a new relationship. They are trying to stay in the past, and they are trying to hold this province and the aboriginal and non-aboriginal people of this province back. They are wrong.

One of the things I have learned over the last number of years but particularly in the last number of months as I've worked with aboriginal leaders on a number of areas of concern that we share, where we have common ground, common agreement and common objectives…. I would not for a second, and neither would this Legislature, suggest that we will tell aboriginal communities what is best for the people there. I believe the aboriginal leadership is best to decide what their goals are. Aboriginal people are there to decide what their goals are. We respect that, we honour that, we trust that, and we are going to work with them to build on that.

Our government's commitment and, for many of us, the commitment to go to the people of British Columbia and ask them and engage them in building a successful platform for successful resolution for treaties goes back to 1997. After going across the province in a previous Legislature's Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, our minority report from opposition suggested that we have a referendum, a one-time-only referendum, to establish the principle framework we would take to the negotiating table on behalf of British Columbians.

I candidly tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I wish the government had done that in 1997. For five years I travelled the province as did my colleagues, added to those who supported our party, and suggested that to build the new relationship, we had to make this relationship and this treaty-building inclusive of all British Columbians. There are people who for some reason don't trust the public. They'll tell you they won't understand it. I can tell you they do understand it. They understand the importance of making treaties. They understand the importance of creating hope. They understand the importance of creating opportunity.

We believe those people will come together in this great endeavour, and they will vote in a referendum to establish principles that we can take to the table so we do have the foundation for progress and success.

Far from what the member for Vancouver-Hastings suggests, I think this is an opportunity for us. It's an opportunity for us in each of our constituencies to discuss with people the incredible opportunity we have in resolving treaties and moving forward. It's an opportunity for people to understand what our constitutional

obligations are. It's an opportunity for them to understand the constitutional rights that are protected for first nations under section 35 of our Canadian constitution.

This is an opportunity for us to have a democratically accountable decision made. Think of this: we're going to make sure every eligible voter in the province has an opportunity to shape the direction that government will take. I don't believe we should do that in every instance, but I think that when you've gone through an election, as we did last year, when we've highlighted what our concerns are and what some of our solutions are to revitalize the treaty process, it would be wrong today to turn our back on the people of British Columbia who gave us their support. It would be wrong to turn our back on the principles we enunciated.

Hon. Speaker, let me be clear on what every member of this government said in the most recent election. We said we would give all British Columbians a say on the principles that should guide B.C.'s approach to treaty negotiations through a one-time provincewide referendum within our first year. Further, we said that we would ask an all-party committee of the Legislature to consult with British Columbians, including first nations, to draft referendum questions. I am proud of the fact that our government is going to do what we said we would do.

Hon. G. Campbell: Aboriginal leaders understand that we in this chamber have an obligation to live up to our commitments to the people of British Columbia. I don't claim for a second that they agree with the position. I heard from aboriginal leaders at the First Nations Summit weeks before the election. They disagree. I explained why I thought it was a worthwhile endeavour. The people of British Columbia were engaged in that discussion last April and May. The people of British Columbia, not just in the election but in poll after poll since the election, have said they want in. They want to play a positive role. They want to be included so we can resolve treaties and move forward as British Columbians and aboriginal British Columbians together. That's what this government wants to do.

I am pleased that my government will unanimously support this motion. They will unanimously support the commitments we have made to the people of this province. The Attorney General has moved that the House urges the government to conduct a referendum asking the following question: whereas the government of British Columbia is committed to negotiating workable, affordable treaty settlements that provide certainty, finality and equality, do you agree that the government should adopt the following principles to guide its participation in treaty negotiations?

These are tripartite negotiations: first nations, the government of Canada and the government of British Columbia. When they go to the treaty table, first nations have a commitment from their first nation citizens. They have a commitment that's normally formed after a referendum. They go to the table knowing they have the support of their people behind them. It's time for British Columbia to do the same.

If we could some way turn the clock back to 1991 and 1992 and look at how the Treaty Commission was formed and look at how the previous government acted, it may not be necessary to actually put some of these principles to the people of British Columbia.

The previous government said one thing and did another, and when that happens it creates fear in the general populace. When it happens, it creates concern. When it happened, it basically undermined and sapped the reservoir of goodwill between British Columbians and their government to start resolving these issues. We want to replenish that reservoir of goodwill, and this referendum will do just that.

Private property should not be expropriated for treaty settlements. That creates certainty in people's minds. That creates certainty that the government will not be at the table trying to expropriate someone's property. I want to be clear about this. First nations, the federal government and the province of British Columbia have said that that's the case in the past, but it has constantly been undermined by the previous governments — not a first nation, not the federal government, but by the previous provincial government's actions. We want to put that to rest. We do not believe that private property should be negotiated. A "yes" means that we will not be using that at the treaty table.

One of the members opposite has raised the issue of how you create certainty. You create certainty by saying that these are principles we believe in. These are principles that will create a framework. This will allow people to know that they can build a future within that framework.

The second principle: the terms and conditions of leases and licences should be respected; fair compensation for unavoidable disruption of commercial interests should be ensured. That principle should assure British Columbians that there will be no more Carrier Lumbers. That says to the farmer in the Okanagan who had rights under a previous agreement that were being undermined by the previous provincial government: "You don't have to worry. We will live up to our legal obligations. If indeed we do have to do something differently, you will be compensated." That creates certainty in the minds of thousands of British Columbians about building an economic future for themselves and their communities. It's a principle that I think all of us should be able to endorse and that should give people a sense of comfort.

One of the principles we are asking British Columbians about is this: hunting, fishing and recreational opportunities on Crown land should be ensured for all

When we complete treaties, there will be treaty lands. There will be core lands for the aboriginal community. It will be the aboriginal community that decides what is happening on those lands, just as it's local communities that decide what's happening on their lands. But on Crown lands we will be maintaining the access of all British Columbians for hunting, fishing and recreational opportunities. We know that British Columbians are concerned about that. If they vote yes for this, that means that their concerns will be alleviated.

We understand the challenges that are faced in dealing with the resources that we have in this province. The fisheries resource is something we have said consistently that we believe has to be managed not just for the long-term good of the fishery but for all British Columbians — aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike. We continue to take that position. Working together constructively to recognize both the cultural and the economic significance of the fishery to our aboriginal communities, as well as to the coastal communities and the fishing communities of British Columbia, I believe we can have a positive framework again for long-term conservation, for stewardship of the resource, that allows all British Columbians to know that there is an opportunity to participate in the resources of this province.

We have said that provincewide standards for resource management and environmental protection should continue to apply. We believe it is important to apply those standards across the province. We would continue to work for those. I believe that sitting at the treaty table, all sides of the treaty table should be able to agree with that principle. It's one that we will take and that we will advocate on behalf of the people of British Columbia, if the people of British Columbia give us their support and vote yes.

Aboriginal people have a strong and profound connection with our environment. They understand how everything is interconnected. Our airsheds, our watersheds, our land base all work together in a great circle. I know they understand that what lines we put on a map don't determine where the river's going to flow or how the air is going to flow or how healthy it will be.

It is important that we have environmental standards and resource management standards that are applied across the province. I believe we can accomplish that goal. We may have different ways of implementing them. As we've seen with the Nisga'a, they will meet the standards that British Columbia has set, or they will exceed them. That is a goal we've set for ourselves, and we believe that principle is one that every British Columbian can and should support.

I want to spend a moment on the principle with regard to aboriginal self-government. There is not a person in this Legislature who does not believe that aboriginal communities deserve and need self-government. Indeed, as I've talked with aboriginal leaders over the last number of months, there is nothing that seems to me to be more critical than to establish self-government for aboriginal people that gets them out from underneath the burden of the Indian Act and allows them to plot out their own future in their own way for their own people in their own time. That is certainly one of the goals that I think all should share.

Aboriginal self-government should indeed be within our constitutional framework. This government believes, and has been straightforward with our belief, that aboriginal self-government should have the characteristics of local governments, with powers delegated from Canada and British Columbia. This was an explicit commitment in our New Era document. It's one that I believe we should put forward to the people, because it is critical that people understand what aboriginal self-government can and should be.

The question in the referendum speaks to this commitment. I want to remove any doubt as to where British Columbians stand on this issue. If British Columbians vote yes to this question, it will be a clear and unequivocal mandate to uphold our stated position on aboriginal self-government. We are asking British Columbians; we are not telling them. This is a referendum, and we will be guided by it. If people vote no to the principle we are proposing, it will obviously give our government cause to reconsider its current negotiating position not to enshrine aboriginal self-government in treaties as a third order of government with special status under the constitution.

Hon. Speaker, as you know, nowhere in Canada, other than in the Nisga'a treaty, is aboriginal self-government constitutionally entrenched in a treaty. This principle speaks to that principle of provincial equality, to that principle of having a framework for aboriginal self-government in British Columbia that's similar to that in other parts of the province. It also speaks to the need for a national policy on aboriginal self-government that treats all Canadians equally, regardless of where they live.

We fundamentally believe, in this government, that all Canadians should have equal rights and equal status in their governments — aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike. We recognize the special rights that aboriginal people have within the Canadian constitution, but all Canadians should have the right to vote for governments that make laws on their behalf and literally rule their lives.

We should understand that aboriginal self-governments, like many governments across the country, have different shapes and different sizes and different models. We believe that by focusing on aboriginal self-government that has the characteristics of local government with delegated authorities from both the federal and the provincial levels of government, we can build an aboriginal self-government that works, that's resilient and that meets the needs of aboriginal people.

We recognize that the Indian Act has failed aboriginal Canadians miserably. It must be replaced with

new forms of self-government that are negotiated and delegated by statute to ensure that first nations have the legal tools they need to properly govern their own affairs. I am committed to working with first nations leaders to ensure that just that very thing happens.

There will be debate about the referendum. There will be debate about the principles. We should welcome the debate. We should welcome it with the openness and the accountability that says we are fortunate to live in a province where we can engage our citizens in this kind of debate. This is not a debate about taking away the rights of a minority. We are endorsing and supporting, and we will continue to support the rights of aboriginal British Columbians as we move to resolve treaties.

It is important to know, though, that as we build these treaties, we want to create a future that is not rife with discord, but rather a future that harmonizes the needs and concerns of all British Columbians — again, aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike. Our government is saying that we believe treaties should include mechanisms for harmonizing land use planning between aboriginal governments and neighbouring local governments.

Again, I want to confront this. Because there has been no statement about that, there are fears. We can remove those fears because with this referendum, the people of British Columbia will be binding the government at the treaty table. I don't believe that aboriginal communities are saying they want to ignore local communities. But I think it's important for us to ask the citizens of British Columbia for their concerns, to give us direction and to bind us as we go forward in this regard so that aboriginal leaders and federal government negotiators alike will understand that is a critical part of harmonizing the relationships of British Columbians across this province.

Let me conclude by saying I believe that too often in the past, we have said that the answer to aboriginal problems today is the resolution of treaties. It is one answer. It will be a difficult answer to find. These negotiations are complex, but they should be entered into with good faith. They should be entered into as we build a foundation of trust in all the other endeavours that take place in our lives in the province.

We have to be sure that aboriginal people have economic opportunities. We have to be sure that they are able to take advantage of the vast and abundant resources of this province. We have to assure that they have health services that meet their needs today — not their needs a generation from now or years from now, but that meet their needs today. We have to strive to improve the education system so that aboriginal people have the same sense of hope and excitement about learning and their future as every other British Columbian.

The referendum is important, and treaties are important. As we work to meet our daily obligations to our aboriginal citizens in this province, as we work with them to help them realize their goals and objectives, we have an obligation to revitalize a treaty process which is essential to our future and the future of aboriginal people in this province.

There are some who have said that the legitimacy of this referendum lies in the rate of participation. With respect, I say they are wrong. This vote is all about helping to bring legitimacy to the treaty process through a democratic expression of the people of this province. In the end, what matters is not how many people vote. What matters is that people can vote to help shape this future.

Unlike the member opposite, I hope that we ask the people of British Columbia — each of us asks them — to get engaged in this discussion, to become informed about the opportunities that are in front of us and to vote. There is nothing more valuable in our democracy than the citizens' right to shape the direction the government will take. I'm proud that this government is giving our citizens an opportunity to meet this challenge.

	YEAS — 62
Falcon	Coell	Hogg
Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins	Whittred
Cheema	Hansen	Bruce
Santori	van Dongen	Barisoff
Nettleton	Roddick	Wilson
Masi	Lee	Thorpe
Murray	Plant	Campbell
Clark	Bond	Stephens
Abbott	Coleman	Chong
Penner	Jarvis	Anderson
Harris	Nuraney	Brenzinger
Belsey	Bell	Long
Mayencourt	Trumper	Johnston
Bennett	Hayer	Christensen
Krueger	McMahon	Bray
Les	Nijjar	Bhullar
Wong	Suffredine	MacKay
Cobb	K. Stewart	Visser
Lekstrom	Brice	Sultan
Sahota	Hawes	Kerr
Manhas	[ Page 1902 ]	Hunter
	NAYS — 2
MacPhail		Kwan

Hon. G. Plant: I call Committee of Supply in Committee A. For the information of members, we will be discussing the estimates of the Ministry of Education.

Hon. K. Falcon: Mr. Speaker, Bill 8 is an important step towards meeting our government's commitment to reduce the regulatory burden in British Columbia by one-third within three years. The benchmark against which we are measuring our progress is the almost 404,000 regulatory requirements in provincial legislation and related regulations and interpretative policies. By June 2004 that number will drop by at least 135,000, and we will be sure that what remains in place is necessary and effective.

Bill 8, which eliminates over 600 unnecessary or outmoded requirements, is just the beginning. It contains amendments that ministers have identified will cut red tape, reduce the regulatory burden or make it easier to deal with government without raising significant public policy issues. These are the guiding principles of the bill.

First, Bill 8 repeals the following obsolete or archaic statutes or parts of statutes: the 1914 Community Regulation Act, which addresses the refusal of Doukhobors to register births and deaths and send their children to school; the Curfew Act, which authorizes the Lieutenant-Governor to establish a curfew for children after receiving a petition from residents in a rural area. The Cultural Foundation of British Columbia Act and Library Foundation of British Columbia Act were made obsolete by 1997 changes to the government tax law. The Public Service Bonding Act requires all government employees to be bonded and has not been used since government assumed liability for the actions of its employees. The Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development Act and the Ministry of International Trade, Science and Investment Act relate to ministries that no longer exist.

The 1931 Dogwood, Rhododendron and Trillium Protection Act prohibits damage to or removal of these plants from private and public land without permission. It carries a penalty of $25 and to the best of our knowledge, in the 70-plus years it's been in effect, has never been used or enforced.

The Premier's Advisory Council for Persons with Disabilities Act and the Northern Development Act relate to entities that no longer exist. The Northern Development Commission has been abolished. The office for disability issues is now part of the Ministry of Human Resources and was established in 1994 to replace the council.

The Trade and Convention Centre Act and the University Endowment Land Park Act address matters that have been completed. They first authorized the government to carry out now-completed agreements in the development of the Victoria Conference Centre and the existing Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre. The latter authorized the now-completed transfer of University Endowment Lands to the greater Vancouver regional district for parks purposes.

Secondly, Bill 8 repeals legislation that has never been brought into force but has remained on the books. Most of the 1985 Special Enterprise Zone and Tax Relief Act, for example, which was intended to establish tax relief zones, has never been implemented. Likewise, most of the 1965 Universities Real Estate Development Corporation Act, which provides for the transfer of parts of University Endowment Lands to a corporation created under the act, was never proclaimed and the corporation never created.

Bill 8 also repeals 1993 changes to the Health Act that would have expanded the grounds on which a person could appeal sewage disposal system matters to the Environmental Appeal Board. These have never been brought into force, because the expanded appeal grounds did not yield any obvious health benefits. Similarly, the unproclaimed 1998 Tobacco Fee Act, which would have imposed unworkable licensing fees for the sale of tobacco products, has also been repealed.

Eliminating archaic or obsolete law and unproclaimed provisions helps contribute to certainty and accessibility of regulation. These are important characteristics of a modern, effective and efficient regulatory environment. Keeping the statute books up to date avoids the costs of uncertainty and a maze of potentially contradictory rules, which then generate yet more rules to interpret the maze.

In the interests of certainty, Bill 8 also amends the Local Government Act to clarify the authority to award certificates in administration to improvement district officers so that their skills and professionalism can be recognized, just as it is for municipal and regional district employees.

An amendment to the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act restores authority to the city of Vancouver clerk and treasurer that resulted inadvertently from 1998 changes to the titles of local government officers.

Next, Bill 8 eliminates duplication and redundancy that increases cost to businesses and the public. For example, the bill will repeal the inspector of dikes's powers under the Dike Maintenance Act that are either no longer used or provided for under the Emergency

Program Act. It will repeal part 1 of the Drainage, Ditch and Dike Act, which deals with drainage construction issues that have been resolved for many years through services provided by local government and the Ministry of Transportation.

The Local Government Act is amended to eliminate the need to duplicate references to officers under both the Local Government Act and the Vancouver Charter, where the use of one reference is intended to cover both.

Amendments to the Financial Institutions Act cut redundant paperwork and streamline the process for obtaining the necessary regulatory approvals for credit union mergers and for extraprovincial insurers and trust companies that merge with other companies.

The archaic Pawnbrokers Act dates back to 1868 without significant amendment. It, frankly, deals with loans of less than $50. It establishes unrealistic holding periods, resale requirements and fees, and mandates an outdated paper-based recording system. Consumer protection is far better provided under trade practices and other current consumer protection legislation.

The Livestock Act is amended to eliminate licensing requirements for livestock artificial insemination centres and technicians, effective March 31, 2002. These requirements were brought in during the 1950s to address farmers' initial concerns about the costs and the standards for what was then a new technique. Livestock artificial insemination is now a standard, widely used and widely accepted agricultural commercial transaction. Licensing is no longer needed.

Finally, Bill 8 helps promote e-government. The Wills Act amendments enable electronic handling of wills notices. The Name Act amendments streamline the preparation of forms and will enable electronic publication of name changes. This helps to reflect our new-era commitment to make British Columbia a world leader in e-government.

Outdated and unneeded regulatory requirements penalize economic competitiveness and prosperity, particularly with today's rapid pace of change. In keeping with our new-era commitment and the best regulatory management practices around the world, we have made the review and upgrading of existing regulation a key aspect of our deregulation framework. Bill 8 implements the results of some earlier reviews of the existing thicket of regulation in our province. Bill 8 weeds out over 600 unneeded rules and adapts others to today's conditions.

Hon. K. Falcon: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 8, Deregulation Statutes Amendment Act, 2002, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 7 amends the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to respond to the recommendations of the legislative committee that reviewed the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to address compliance and cost issues and make needed administrative improvements. Bill 7 responds to the recommendations of the legislative committee in a number of ways.

First, the bill will allow the information and privacy commissioner to delegate specific order-making powers and to refuse to hold inquiries in particular circumstances. This will provide the commissioner with increased flexibility.

Second, the bill establishes a 20-day time limit for public bodies to respond to requests for fee waivers. This will ensure that public bodies do not use requests for fee waivers as a way to delay responding to FOI requests.

Third, the bill requires public bodies to provide a fee estimate before retrieving requested information and to request a deposit for large requests. This will reduce costs, as a public body will not start processing requests before the applicant has confirmed the request. In many instances, when the applicant receives the fee estimate, they narrow their request or decide not to pursue it. This procedure is current practice but does not have legislative authority. The requirement to pay a deposit will also ensure that the applicant commits to large requests before public moneys are invested in processing them. This is also a policy but is not reflected in the legislation.

Fourth, the bill broadens the protection for third-party business information held by government, as it expands the existing criteria from "of a third party" to include information that is "about a third party." This will better achieve the original intent of the exception to protect sensitive business information of third parties.

Fifth, the bill allows public bodies 20 days to transfer a request for records, up from the existing ten days. This amendment benefits requesters who request information from one public body, and the information is actually held by another public body. Because the public body must make sure it does not have the records and then try to find the public body that does have them, it often takes more than ten days to do the transfer. If it takes over ten days, the applicant is required to submit a new request to the second public body, losing time for the applicant.

Sixth, the bill enables new public bodies to be added to the act in a more timely way by way of a ministerial regulation. This simplifies the current two-step process that takes the decision for each new public body to cabinet, resulting in less cost and less delay in covering new public bodies.

Seventh, the bill requires a legislative review of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act every six years. The act provided for one review of the act by an all-party legislative committee four years after it was proclaimed but did not provide for further reviews. Because of the act's comprehensiveness and profile, the government has accepted the legislative committee's recommendation that further periodic reviews were needed to allow for public input on how to improve the operation of the act.

Eighth, the bill simplifies the definition of "personal information." The current definition includes a lengthy list of types of personal information but was not intended to be exhaustive. Many have interpreted the list to mean that if the type of information is not included on the list, it is not personal information. The new definition is less confusing and is consistent with the direction of private sector privacy acts. The list will be maintained in the publicly available freedom of information and protection of privacy policy manual.

Bill 7 also contains a number of provisions that will address compliance and cost issues and make needed administrative improvements. The bill will expect applicants to assist in the request process by providing sufficient detail to enable an experienced employee of a public body to identify the records being requested. The bill also requires that appropriate documentation be provided in cases where an individual is required to act for another individual. This will save time and cost by ensuring that public bodies are able to understand what a requester is seeking and that the requester has provided the authority necessary to request information on behalf of another individual before a request is opened. This will result in fewer requests going beyond the 30-day response deadline and less confusion for applicants.

The bill will permit a public body to stop work on requests when waiting for rulings by the commissioner. An example would be when the public body has asked to disregard a frivolous or vexatious request, when a third party asks the commissioner to review a decision of the public body and when an applicant requests a review of a fee estimate or a response to a request for a fee waiver.

Currently, public bodies are in a difficult position as they cannot respond to requests until the commissioner has responded to appeals, and yet the 30-day time clock is still ticking while they wait for his decision. Therefore, in many of the cases that they go over the time limit for responding, they have no control over the amount of time taken. This change will allow the clock to stop until the commissioner makes his decision, and the public body can stay within the mandated time line.

With respect to fees, the public body will not have to continue processing the request until the applicant has committed to pay the assessed fees. This can result in less waste of resources in situations where the applicant either does not choose to pay the fees or narrows the request significantly.

Another provision will address an inadvertent consequence of the original drafting by now allowing the indirect collection of personal information in medical emergency situations. Currently, the act does not permit medical staff to collect information from third parties about an unconscious patient.

The bill expands the rules of disclosure of personal information to include situations where the information is permitted as well as required to be disclosed by provincial or federal enactment. It also allows disclosure in circumstances where another public body requires personal information to carry out its duties or to protect the safety of its staff. These changes will facilitate the use of personal information as intended in provincial and federal statutes and allow integrated services to function more effectively.

Another provision will allow public bodies to be able to request permission from the commissioner to disregard frivolous and vexatious requests — requests that often have considerable cost implications. Other jurisdictions have allowed public bodies on their own to disregard these types of requests for many years. B.C. public bodies will still have to seek permission from the information and privacy commissioner. This will allow public bodies to concentrate their efforts on responding to reasonable requests from the public and result in more timely responses.

The bill defines "days" as working days, not calendar days. This will provide applicants, public bodies and the commissioner's office with approximately eight more days per month to meet the time requirements stipulated by the act. This amendment will ensure that public bodies actually have 30 working days to process requests and not less than 20, which is often the case during months with statutory holidays. This additional time will also help the commissioner meet his legislative responsibilities within the prescribed time lines.

The last amendment I wish to discuss requires the publication of a personal information directory, the first of its kind in Canada. The public will have access to on-line information about all information-sharing agreements, privacy impact assessments and personal information banks done or held by government. The personal information directory will replace older types of directories and indexes currently in the act. Ministry websites and e-government are also providing enhanced information about government programs and records, making the old directories redundant.

The provisions of this bill will increase the openness and accountability of government, reduce compliance requirements and costs, and continue the tradition of B.C. having the freedom of information and privacy act that is the most open and strongest on privacy protection in Canada.

Hon. G. Plant: I want to rise and speak for just a minute or two to congratulate my colleague the Minister of Management Services for bringing forward this initiative. I think all citizens who care about open and accountable government will congratulate this government for continuing its work to ensure that we are the most open and accountable government in Canada. The act, when it was introduced, was a groundbreaking piece of legislation. Among its best features was the requirement that there be a review conducted of the statute after four years by a committee of the Legislature.

One of the things I think is important and good news, frankly, about what's happening here this evening is that the introduction of this bill shows how this place can work. I was a member of the committee that was convened pursuant to the requirement that there be such a committee, and other members who are here today in this House were also on that committee. We worked hard over a period of many months. We learned from the then government how the act was administered. We spent time listening to the groups in British Columbia that use the act to get information from government. We listened to individuals and their experiences in trying to use the act to obtain access to government records and also to ensure that their personal privacy was maintained by a government that has control over information about them.

We worked in what was then a fairly partisan environment. We worked as a committee of all parties together to come up with a set of recommendations that I think represented the best of what a Legislature can do in a situation like this. We looked at a comprehensive and complicated but important piece of legislation. We thought about and examined how it was working, and we identified the areas where it could be improved — improvements which would ensure that while we maintain access, we don't impose unnecessary cost burdens on government or, for that matter, unnecessary burdens on citizens in relation to their access to information.

We recognized that as a statute operates over time, we all learn about how to make it work better or about areas where it doesn't work very well. In this case, given the importance of the statute to a healthy democracy, I think it was a tribute to the members of the committee that they were able to come together with a set of recommendations for how to improve the act. I think, frankly, it's a tribute to this government and to the minister that he is acting upon that committee's recommendations and bringing forward these amendments that are in this bill today.

That is exactly how this place can operate. We can work as private members, and we can work to study what government does. We can make suggestions for improvement, including suggestions for improving the legislation that government enacts, and government can listen to those recommendations.

In this case, as the minister has done, it can act on those recommendations to bring forward amendments that really amount to fine-tuning a very excellent piece of legislation so it will continue to serve the purposes for which it was originally enacted — ensuring that government provides citizens with access to the information they are entitled to — to hold government to account for the work it does and to protect personal privacy.

Those important twin purposes join together in one act. It's a hugely important statute, I think. It's one that has costs associated with its administration. All members know of the challenge of working to ensure that the act will continue to serve its fundamental purposes in a climate of fiscal constraint, but I'm convinced we can do that.

These amendments will go a long way to making sure the purposes of the act will continue to be relevant, will continue to be served, and that the public will still have the benefit of the access to information and the protection of privacy they deserve. I congratulate the minister on bringing forward this set of amendments. I know he is working on other issues in this area, including the important issues around the protection of privacy rights in the private sector.

I also have to say that I think the example set by the government and the Legislature that originally enacted this legislation, the example of introducing into the bill a requirement that it be reviewed after a certain number of years, is an example that commends itself to government whenever we embark upon a project of introducing a new and comprehensive piece of legislation. It may not work in every case, but it's certainly something we should look at.

I also want to specifically congratulate the minister for having recognized the importance of that right of review in the case of this act by bringing forward a set of amendments that will, in effect, make the right of review something that continues to occur every six years as we go forward into the future.

It's a great initiative, more good news from a government that delivers all kinds of good news for the people of British Columbia. I'm just delighted to have the opportunity to speak in support of it.

Hon. S. Santori: I would like to thank my colleague the Attorney General for his comments.

These amendments were brought forward as a clear sign that we are committed to increasing openness and transparency and at the same time addressing compliance and cost issues. This act is lauded not only in North America but in Europe. We intend to maintain that status in the future, as well, with future acts that will come forward dealing with the protection of privacy in the private sector.

Hon. S. Santori: I move that Bill 7 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 7, Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2002, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. R. Coleman: The introduction of the Gaming Control Act is another step in reorganizing gaming in British Columbia to replace what was a dysfunctional operation with a seamless operation without influence by members of this House on licensing and issues to do with gaming so that it's kept at arm's length from government.

Gaming in this province, Mr. Speaker, is conducted under the authority of the Criminal Code of Canada. The Criminal Code allows each province to conduct and manage gaming or to license charitable and religious organizations to conduct and manage some forms of gaming. Until recently gaming in British Columbia has been managed through a number of agencies, commissions, several laws and numerous regulations. Five different agencies had a role in regulating, licensing, inspecting, managing, auditing and operating gaming in this province. They were the gaming policy secretariat, the B.C. Gaming Commission, the gaming audit and investigation office, the B.C. Racing Commission and the B.C. Lottery Corporation.

At present there are four statutes dealing with gaming. They are the Lottery Act, the Lottery Corporation Act, the Horse Racing Act and the Horse Racing Tax Act. In addition, there are numerous policies and directives relative to gaming. One of the things I found out as I moved into the gaming sector as a minister and looked at it was that we had not given the legislative authority for a lot of the work we asked our staff to conduct themselves, particularly in audit and investigation. This act fixes that.

In addition to the numerous policies and directives related to gaming, despite all this, several aspects of the gaming industry are not covered by legislation. For example, as I said earlier, the registration, audit and investigatory functions of gaming have been occurring but haven't had the legislative authority to do so. It's very important that we fix that, Mr. Speaker, so that we can move on in a professional manner.

When we took office, we reviewed gaming management structure, and our review identified a great deal of duplication. It identified inefficiencies. It highlighted the need for restructuring, and it highlighted the need for a comprehensive legislative framework. As a result, we announced a new management model for gaming in September of 2001. The five agencies that previously were responsible for gaming were consolidated into two: the gaming policy and enforcement branch and the B.C. Lottery Corporation.

The B.C. Lottery Corporation is responsible for the day-to-day operations of gaming, including commercial bingo halls, a change which I've moved over from the Gaming Commission. The gaming policy and enforcement branch is responsible for enforcement functions and, for now, charitable gaming such as 50-50 draws and meat raffles. The government sets a broad policy within which both of these agencies operate. These changes were made to improve the efficiency of the gaming sector and to reduce the overlap and duplication.

In December we made some further changes to policy to make it easier for charities to spend and distribute funds relative to gaming in British Columbia. We had a regime that believed that charities didn't know what to do with their money and how to handle it. We had a regime that actually choked off the volunteer, that stopped it from being innovative within community with some fairly ridiculous and silly rules for what these people had to do when they were giving their volunteer time to their community.

We made some changes in December. We allowed gaming revenues to be used for capital projects, something the charities have been asking for, for years, something that had not been done for some time but had been allowed in previous governments. The allowance for a charity now to accumulate money for a capital project will once again see charity dollars going into things like community centres, swimming pools, parks and other recreation activities within our communities as well as other opportunities.

We removed a requirement that existed in the previous Gaming Commission that every time an organization wished to spend $1,000 or more of money raised through gaming, they had to ask permission of government for where they could send the money. We had groups out there that were constantly on a bookkeeping activity having to ask government for permission to donate money to their communities, which it raised through charitable gaming. We removed the cap on how much a given group could raise in a year.

If you could imagine, the Seniors Lottery in this province has the opportunity to run three lotteries a year. Under the previous rules, if the first two lotteries were too successful, they weren't allowed to run the third, because they had a cap on how much money they'll actually allow us to raise to give to seniors groups in British Columbia. We removed that.

We did a number of other things. We allowed community groups with lottery licences to donate to each other so that groups could get together in a community and pool their resources from charitable gaming dollars for the benefit of a larger project or issue within their community. The previous government had actually stopped them from being allowed to donate to each other if the other had a bingo or a lottery licence.

We eased the residency requirements for non-profit boards so organizations tied into national relationships could have people represented that would meet up with their constitution and bylaws. We've streamlined the application process, including the need for non-profits to resubmit documents that they had been submitting to government year after year when applying for the same licences.

We also recognized the most important thing that I don't think the previous government understood about non-profit organizations: their value to the community is incredible, and the most important thing is to keep the volunteer organizations whole. In order to do that, they need the ability to have some funds for themselves to administer their organizations. In the past they were restricted to 5 percent of their net revenues that they could put to administration and were restricted on how they could spend that. We took the restrictions off and raised it to 7 percent so those organizations can actually function properly within their community.

Bill 6 provides a comprehensive legislative framework. The bill formalizes the mandate and financial administration considerations of the B.C. Lottery Corporation. The bill confirms the authority of the corporation to conduct and manage lotteries, casinos and commercial bingo halls in B.C.

It establishes a role for the corporation in regard to the future of the horse-racing industry. The bill establishes the framework for the location or relocation of gaming facilities and ensures that those decisions will be made by the B.C. Lottery Corporation ? a very key point, because in the past many decisions relative to the relocation or assignments of casinos or bingos and their locations were influenced by members of government, members of executive council or Members of the Legislative Assembly by lobbying.

That is now arm's length from government. That is in the hands of the Lottery Corporation, who have a mandate to manage this sector. It will never again happen after the passage of Bill 6 that the influence of a minister should ever have any influence whatsoever relative to a gaming facility in British Columbia relative to its relocation, its operation or its management.

Bill 6 formalizes the mandate and responsibility of the gaming policy and enforcement branch. The bill supports the branch's responsibility for policy and legislation, standards, regulation, licensing, registration, distribution of gaming proceeds and enforcement of all sectors of gaming.

It provides all the necessary authority for licensing of charitable gaming events and horse racing. It provides the statutory authority for the registration of gaming service providers and gaming workers and those organizations and individuals involved in the industry. It also provides the statutory authority for audits and investigations in response to allegations of wrongdoing and our ability to manage the sector of gaming that we want to go after, after we settle this one down, and that is the illegal gaming in British Columbia.

Bill 6 also provides authorization to provide gaming funds to eligible community organizations. It eliminates duplication and improves accountability. It provides for the fair and transparent administration of gaming.

The bill fulfils the government's commitment to establish legislation that provides a stable and carefully regulated gaming environment in British Columbia. This bill ensures the integrity of gaming for all British Columbians, and I'm proud to bring this bill to the House today because it's high time that we got this sector under control.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 6, Gaming Control Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I call the estimates for the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services.

Hon. G. Abbott: Mr. Chair, as we commence here, we have agreed with the opposition that we will deal with housing at least as long as the members wish this evening. I'd like to introduce the one member of the staff here tonight who hasn't been previously introduced. That's Shayne Ramsay of B.C. Housing.

J. Kwan: The minister, I know, was out today making an announcement of cutting a thousand housing units that were formerly approved by the previous government and moving forward with only 700 units. Actually, the minister had chosen to announce the outcome of this review through what often takes place in this House — those little soft-lob questions from the government bench MLAs in question period where one was asked: "…later this week we will be announcing about 700 units that will proceed. About a thousand, unfortunately, won't be able to proceed…at this time."

Can the minister tell us why he chose to announce the housing cancellation of a thousand units and the 700 units through question period in the House?

Hon. G. Abbott: In fact, I announced last October that we had to make some difficult choices around the provision of subsidized housing in the province. The very difficult situation which confronted the ministry and confronted me on assuming office was a budget expenditure line which rose from $126 million in fiscal 2001-02 to a budget line of $170 million in fiscal 2004-05. Clearly, hon. Chair — and I realized this early on — that is not a sustainable budget line in any fiscal context, never mind the severely constrained context which we are forced to be in at this point in time as a consequence of the spendthrift ways of the former government.

We had to make some very difficult decisions around that. We had to find a way to create a sustainable budget expenditure line for housing in British Columbia. We know how important housing is, but we also have to operate, as do all parts of this government, within sustainable budget lines.

I had to make some difficult decisions as a consequence of the ways of the former government, and the decision I made was to put under review 1,702 units. I took no pleasure in doing that, I can tell you. It's something that I felt I had to do in order to restore fiscal sustainability to this particular part of my ministry.

Those were under review for a period of time. I was, and certainly B.C. Housing was, active over the past few months since that time. What we have done over that period is work with our many and varied partners in housing projects in British Columbia to find ways in which we could achieve the notable goal of providing housing to the most vulnerable in our society whether they be the frail elderly, the homeless, the mentally ill or the severely physically disabled. Those are the groups that we feel we really need to target our short resources towards.

We've done that. We've worked very extensively with our partners — the cities, municipalities and regional districts in the province, health authorities, non-profits and indeed some private sector contributors who have stepped up to the plate in a most notable way to help make these projects work.

We were very active in putting those stronger partnerships together, and I'm extremely proud to be a part of a government that today announced that we will be able to proceed with some 20 projects in different parts of the province from Cariboo to south Vancouver Island and certainly from the Okanagan to the lower mainland. We have 20 projects that I'm very proud of, and I'm very proud that we're going to be able to proceed with those projects within a sustainable budget line.

J. Kwan: The minister mentions that B.C. Housing spends about $126 million on affordable housing, and that's increasing to $170 million. You know what? I'm proud of that record. Actually, I think we need to increase that record, unlike this Liberal government. They think spending $2 billion in tax cuts is the way to go. They think giving the largest corporations a big tax cut is the way to go. They think giving the wealthiest British Columbians the largest tax cut is the way to go and taking money away from the poor and putting it into the pockets of the rich is the way to go. With all due respect, hon. Chair, I disagree.

Prior to this government coming into office, British Columbia had the best record on affordable housing, bar none. We were one of two provinces that continued on an affordable housing program, and the affordable housing program went from the 600 base and increased over time — before the governments changed — to last year's budget: 2,300 units of affordable housing. This government — yes, they've announced 700 — has now cancelled 1,000. There are still 600 units that are missing. What's happened to those units?

Hon. G. Abbott: It's always a delight to hear from the member opposite more of the rhetoric of class conflict that so ably succeeded in taking this province over the past decade from the No. 1 economy in the country to the No. 10 economy in the country. Clearly, we can't describe it as an achievement. What that former government did with their absolute recklessness, with their frequent incompetence…. To make a province that is certainly deeply blessed in resources, in people, in infrastructure…. To take all of that and move us from the No. 1 one economy to the No. 10 economy is the sad legacy of this former government. For her to get up and give us more of that same rhetoric tells us why they sit today as two members in a House of 79. Every time the opposition chooses to enter into a debate, they simply remind us of why there was such a dramatic change last May to a new government and a new era here in British Columbia.

The tax cut that the member notes was an essential part of revitalizing and recovering the economy of British Columbia. I know that because of her particular socialist views around class conflict, she may see that as a negative thing. I, in fact, am very proud of a government that realized our tax structure desperately needed to be reformed. It was a tax structure that was driving investment and people out of this province. Every day we see evidence of the legacy of the former government as they undertook to really diminish the tremendous resources and opportunities that we have in this province.

I'm delighted to say that there are 1,702 units that were under review last fall. What the Premier and I have said today is that some 20 projects, comprising 697 units, will be proceeding. What I have said with respect to the balance of 1,005 is that at least some of those projects are at this point relatively close to where they can be undertaken within a sustainable budget line. We are hoping that municipalities, health authorities, non-profits and others that are such a critical part of our communities in British Columbia will step up to

the plate and that in due course we will be able to announce that more of those 1,005 units will also be proceeding.

J. Kwan: This minister is very proud of his government's record to date. And what is he proud of? Taking from the poor to give to the rich. That is the record of this government to date. This is what this government has done. They have cancelled housing projects that are essential to the people who cannot find safe, secure, affordable housing in British Columbia.

I wonder. I asked the question of the minister, which he has not yet answered. He gets up and praises the government for approving close to 700 units of affordable housing — 697. But they've cancelled a thousand units that were formally approved and committed. There were an additional 600 units to which the government had allocated funding from the previous government. What happened to that commitment?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member can continue all night long, if she wishes, to spout the rhetoric of class division. I think most British Columbians who observe these proceedings will certainly understand, once again, why we are in the predicament we are in British Columbia. Clearly, I am very proud to be part of a government that's dedicated to revitalizing and restoring economic recovery here in British Columbia.

If the member wants to get down to business and actually make some progress with respect to these estimates, she can certainly do that, or we can continue to natter at one another here all night. I'd certainly prefer to get down to business, but I'm happy to carry on as long as she is.

The answer to her question, Mr. Chair, is that the 600 units to which she is referring — not to be confused with the 697 that were announced today — are units that were never allocated and never received provisional approval.

J. Kwan: Yes, we'll debate these estimates for as long as it takes. British Columbians want to know, and British Columbians care about housing. Later on I will go into the estimates to talk about polling that's been done by the non-profit and the housing needs, and so on. Irrespective of how the member wants to cast it, the fact of the matter is that this government has cancelled affordable housing projects. They have cancelled them at the expense of the people who need it the most for the people who are the wealthiest British Columbians. That is a reality.

The 600 units the minister refuses to acknowledge — yes, those units weren't allocated to specific programs or specific non-profit societies, but that funding was approved by cabinet, had gone through the process and through Treasury Board. The previous government had allocated dollars for those 600 units. What happened to those 600 units? I anticipate the answer from the minister is that this government has cancelled those 600 units.

Hon. G. Abbott: The units did not have to be cancelled, because they were never allocated. There was never provisional approval for them. I think that as a former minister of housing, the member understands that completely yet is on a kind of partisan rant here that obviously is going to have to play out before we can proceed.

Again, just to be clear here, we announced 697 new units today that will be proceeding. Back when I made the difficult decision to bring the 1,702 under review, we actually allowed 1,383 units, which were then currently under construction and for the most part remain under construction, to proceed.

The 600 units to which the member refers again — the former government were fabulous for making announcements. They were fabulous at that. Any given project would be announced at least half a dozen times under the former government. The beauty of it from their perspective, though, is that they never had to pay for it. We actually feel we have to exercise some fiscal responsibility, some fiscal discipline on this side of the House. Money doesn't shake off a tree. We can't continue to go deeper and deeper in debt.

Under the former administration, we would see projects proceed that were not partnered at all. It was absolutely amazing. They wouldn't ask the municipalities to come to the plate with land, servicing or development cost charge waivers. They wouldn't do any of that. They simply liked to proceed with projects, whether they fit into a sustainable budget line or not.

Again, the challenge we had as a consequence of this government was a budget expenditure line that went from $126 million to $170 million in three years. Clearly, if we are going to exercise some fiscal responsibility and fiscal discipline, we could not continue with that kind of budget line. I am delighted to say, though, that we have arrived at a sustainable budget line, and it reflects the fiscal discipline and responsibility of this government. We will be able to proceed within that line. We don't drag the province down deeper in debt.

The former government spent in every area; they overspent in every area. With these new strengthened partnerships we're going to be able to do way more with the available bucks, and I'm happy to tell the member that this government is going to spend more on housing this year than has ever been spent on housing in British Columbia.

J. Kwan: It just goes to show you how this minister is completely blinded by his partisanship of supporting and protecting the richest British Columbians. When he says the previous government was not working at creating partnerships, he is dead wrong. Maybe he would want to consult with his staff before he gets up, rants and spouts this inaccurate, ill-informed information.

The fact of the matter is that the previous government engaged in creating partnerships with the federal government, local communities and societies in the community. In the city of Vancouver alone, the city offered land in some cases. When they did, it allowed the government to stretch the units from beyond 600, as its basic minimum, and extend that to 1,200 units. To suggest that the previous government didn't do any of that…. This minister does not know what he is talking about.

I appreciate that the minister thinks that I was the former minister of housing. I never was, actually. Housing is a critical issue, I think, for all British Columbians. I am very interested in ensuring that British Columbians have access to safe, secure and affordable housing — particularly, of course, the people who couldn't afford it. That's why I take so much interest in housing, not because I was the former minister.

I do know some of the work that has been done by B.C. Housing, and I appreciate it. They have done a tremendous job over the years in bringing housing to British Columbia. I remember going to the federal government and trying to negotiate additional dollars from the federal government when they opted out of the housing program — to support British Columbia and to bring those partnership dollars in. That was done under the previous government. This minister, who claims credit for the 2,700 or so units of housing that have been built since October 2001, forgets that the majority of those housing projects were built with the previous administration.

What we're looking for is this government's ongoing, strong support for housing in British Columbia. What this minister has demonstrated is the lack of support in that area. Yes, they approved about 700 units of housing, but they cancelled 1,000. What they have also done with the 600 units of housing that were allocated with the dollars is claw that back. Yes, those were not allocated to the societies, but the funding within government was allocated and earmarked for housing, and this government has taken that back. That is the reality.

I'd like to ask the minister if he knows how many people are now on the wait-list of B.C. Housing, waiting for safe, secure, affordable housing in British Columbia.

Hon. G. Abbott: The answer to the question, in terms of people waiting for housing, is 10,000.

We clearly have a very, very considerable problem around housing. We have a vacancy rate in greater Vancouver of 0.7 percent and in greater Victoria of 1 percent. We have a major problem with respect to housing. We are trying to address that in two ways.

One is the affordable housing program which we have begun to roll out here today, as we have been discussing. The other very critical part of the equation is that we have to again work with the federal government and municipalities to try and find ways to eliminate impediments to investments in affordable market rental housing. That certainly is a critical piece.

There is no way, even in the socialist utopia that the hon. member likes to talk about, where presumably the rich have disappeared and all investment in the province has disappeared…. Even in that socialist utopia, even with unlimited resources for government, there will never be the capability for government to single-handedly resolve the housing crisis that faces British Columbia.

What we have to do — I hope this is educational to the member — is not only work on the affordable housing side, the subsidized housing side. We also need to work relentlessly with our partners in government, whether it's the federal government or local governments, to find ways to eliminate the barriers to more market rental housing and, at all of our levels of government, to appropriately get rid of regulation that stands in the way of more market rental housing. If we can do that, then I think we will start to see some opportunity for the vacancy rates to go up in the lower mainland and lower Vancouver Island particularly. But unless we relentlessly address both sides of the equation, we simply aren't going to succeed in that.

Further, I'm glad the member mentioned a partnership with the federal government. I'm proud to say that last December, British Columbia was the first province in Canada to reach an agreement with the federal government for a federal-provincial affordable housing agreement. That was a first. I'm happy to say it is reflective of the relationship we have been building with the federal government in a whole range of areas. That agreement will bring to the table federal resources — $88.7 million in federal dollars, I believe.

British Columbia was the first to sign it. We've had a great relationship with the federal government, and we're going to continue to build on that relationship. We're not going to get mired in the kind of cheap politics that characterized this former regime's relationship with the federal government.

J. Kwan: Please spare me, minister. When the minister accuses me of living in a world of socialist utopia, let me just say this: you can label me any way you want. You can. You can call me whatever names you want. If you want to label me because I care about British Columbians' ability to get access to safe and secure affordable housing and recognize that as a basic, fundamental right we should all be afforded, you can call me any name. You can say I'm a socialist or otherwise.

Yes, I do believe that all British Columbians should have safe, secure, affordable housing. Yes, I do believe that British Columbians' right to housing ought not to be a privilege. This is why we live in a country as rich as we do and in a province as rich as we do. There is no reason and no justification to see people sleeping under bridges, and I do not accept that.

Yes, you can call me a socialist if that's what you think. If that's how you want to define the caring that I think many British Columbians have for their fellow neighbours, you can call them whatever name you want. The reality is that British Columbians do care.

It is your job as this government, as the person who is supposed to advocate for housing, to fight for developing housing and not get up and say it is too expensive and that we cannot afford to build housing for the people who need it the most. They include children, women, seniors, the people who are disabled, ethnic minorities, immigrants, aboriginal people. In every walk of life, they all deserve to have safe and affordable housing, so please spare me your calling people names when they advocate for this change.

The minister seems to be oblivious, perhaps, of a poll that was done on December 18. The Tenants Rights Action Coalition had done a poll with the lower mainland network for affordable housing. It was on government support — on whether or not the provincial government should support affordable housing. To enlighten the minister…. Actually, let me just ask if the minister knows anything about this poll. What does he think about the results of this poll, if he does know it?

Hon. G. Abbott: Staff advise me that the poll the member alludes to indicates that some 85 percent of British Columbians believe that the government of British Columbia should have a role with respect to the provision of affordable housing. That's good; I'm heartened by that poll result. That is precisely why this government has committed itself to providing housing opportunities for the most vulnerable British Columbians.

It is why in the last provincial election campaign we made a commitment to provide 5,000 new units for the frail elderly in British Columbia. We appreciate the sentiment which I suspect underlies the poll. We need — on both sides of the equation that I talked about earlier — to ensure that government's engaged to try to address the needs of the most vulnerable, whether it's the frail elderly, the homeless, the mentally ill or the severely physically disabled — all of those. We are going to work relentlessly as a government within an affordable, sustainable budget line to try to provide new housing opportunities for them.

I believe the other side of the equation is just as important, and I'm sure the member will get around to this eventually: working with other levels of government to ensure that we remove barriers to the building of more affordable rental market housing. We're going to do that by tax reform, and certainly the tax cuts that we brought in last June are going to be a big part of the piece in trying to once again encourage people to invest in safe, affordable market rental housing. It's a big part of the piece. We can move on that.

For example, one of the bills that we repealed last session, I think over the objections of the opposition, was the elderly citizens' housing construction act. I know that affordable housing groups had for months ? actually for years ? been begging the former administration to repeal the Housing Construction (Elderly Citizens) Act. For some reason, they actually made it even worse. That was their response to people asking, pleading with the former government to get rid of that particularly stupid and onerous piece of red tape. They ignored those pleas.

I'm glad to say that our government responded. We listened, and we repealed that onerous piece of red tape, and we're going to do more of the same.

J. Kwan: The study that I mentioned, the poll that was done by the Tenants Rights Coalition, the lower mainland network for affordable housing, on December 18, 2001, actually shows that 91 percent of British Columbians support continued provincial investment in building non-market housing. Over 90 percent of British Columbians support affordable housing.

This government is big on polls. They're big on popularity, because today we just debated the very important issue around the referendum. During the election I think that's how they thought they could win votes, irrespective of the fact that it's the wrong thing to do. They plowed ahead anyway, because that's how they thought they could win votes in the last election.

Maybe this minister will then take heed of the poll that's been commissioned and done by the community on this information. Maybe we'll go back to the real minister of housing, and I guess that would be the Minister of Finance, who actually approves everything or cancels everything for everybody, and say to him: "You know what? The community really supports housing. Maybe we should really invest as opposed to claw back support in affordable housing for British Columbians."

The member likes to talk about the bottom line, and it seems to me that's the thing all of the executive council cabinet ministers always talk about. It's always about the bottom line, to the point that they're so committed to the bottom line that they've tied their wages, their salary, to the bottom line — not to the mandate of their portfolio in achieving the goals of the mandate of that portfolio but rather to the bottom line. So everything is driven by the bottom line for this government ? not about the needs of British Columbians, not about what their mandate within their portfolio is supposed to achieve.

Let me ask the minister this question on the bottom line: is the minister aware that housing is a key determinant of health and that there are studies — in fact, recent studies by government, by B.C. Housing — that show expenditures in health care, criminal justice and social services increase for those who are homeless? In other words, if you invest in housing it would actually decrease costs elsewhere in the system. Is the minister aware of this information and the studies that have been done in B.C. Housing amongst other places, and what does he think about those findings?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member raised a number of points, and I'll try to address them all. Firstly, with respect to polls, my personal view — it may not be universally shared — is that polls are a very transient thing. They shift, and while they're always interesting and sometimes instructive, they are by no means a substitute for sound and sustainable public policy. That's

what we're committed to. Again, perhaps unlike the former government, we're not going to govern on the basis of polls; we're going to govern on the basis of sound and sustainable public policy.

I am certainly very much aware of the importance of housing as a determinant of health. It's important, I think, in both a practical and symbolic sense that we kicked off the housing announcements today at the Dr. Peter Centre for HIV/AIDS sufferers in Vancouver. One of the facts which I think is very important that certainly the Premier talked about today, I talked about today and others talked about today was that the Dr. Peter Centre and the second-stage housing that will be added considerably, as a part of today's announcement, have reduced hospital stays by 98 percent. That's probably as dramatic a piece of evidence around the importance of housing as a health determinant as one could find.

If that's what the member is saying, then I agree with her. Good on her that we concur on a point, finally, here tonight. The tragedy, though, in terms of resourcing projects…. Again, the member opposite may have a different view about how governments should operate. She may have the view that governments don't need to observe any kind of fiscal responsibility or fiscal discipline in the way they manage their funds. I disagree, respectfully. If she has a different view, that's fine.

For example, I think that one of the real tragedies of the last decade would be to think of how many affordable housing units might have been provided by the $500 million that was wasted on the fast-ferries project. How many units would that have managed for us — that ill-planned, if indeed planned at all, project of the former government, the fast ferries? How many affordable housing units would that have provided? Maybe the member opposite actually has an answer to that question. I am guessing it would be thousands and thousands of affordable housing units that would have been possible, had they not proceeded with what the former minister responsible, now the member for Vancouver-Hastings, described as a failed experiment.

You know, government is about the choices we make. If our government is going to live and die on the basis of fiscal discipline and fiscal responsibility, then I'm happy to be a casualty of that, but I don't believe that will be the case. In fact, I think the vote last May 16…. And I'm sure the vote on May 17 of 2005 will confirm that the great majority of British Columbians want us to do precisely what we are doing: make British Columbia once again an attractive, dynamic economy that balances social justice with economic realities.

J. Kwan: Every time the ministers in this Liberal government find themselves in trouble, they start to run and invoke fast ferries. That's been the practice when they've been jammed into the corner on their issues. They run. They find they have to invoke fast ferries. It's just actually a signal. It illustrates that the minister is having difficulties trying to justify for himself this government's action. I think it's an illustration of that.

Hon. Chair, if you listen carefully to the minister's analogy and his understanding on the savings to government in the long term in health care and other areas — criminal justice and the like — if we invest in housing, you would think they would have proceeded with more than just 700 units of housing. You would think he would have gone back to the cabinet table and fought hard and said: "You know, Premier, Minister of Finance, taking money to do tax breaks — I'm not sure if that's the best investment." Perhaps the best investment in the long term that makes economic sense for British Columbians would be investing that money in housing.

The evidence does show that housing is a key determinant of health. A recent study done by B.C. Housing themselves shows expenditures on health care, criminal justice and social services, excluding housing. They found costs, on average, 33 percent higher for the homeless than for individuals who were properly housed — a comparison of $24,000 to $18,000.

The study compared an assisted housing unit with medium support, costing $30 to $40 a day, to the $155-to-$250 a day it costs to maintain an individual in a provincial correctional institution and the average of $380 a day for a psychiatric hospital. In fact, interviews with 1,500 residential hotel and rooming house tenants found that one-quarter were receiving medical treatment. Further, one in five — that's 20 percent — reported that they had been hospitalized in the past five years, with 12 percent for three days or more — well above the national average of 5 percent.

On average, hospital admissions among the homeless are 5 to 12 percent greater than for those with homes. Hospital stays for the homeless are, on average, 4.1 days longer than for those with safe, clean, secure housing or a place to live. It's clear. Without an adequate supply of affordable housing, taxpayers will continue to pay for the homeless in hospitals, in psychiatric beds, in correctional institutions, in the criminal justice system. The list goes on.

It's smarter, if the bottom line is important. I know the minister would like to say I'm just a socialist because I care about people who need to have safe, secure, affordable housing, but it's actually a bottom-line argument as well. It actually makes sense socially and — you know what? — financially, economically as well. It would make sense for government to invest more dollars in this area rather than to cancel 1,000 units of affordable housing that were allocated under the previous administration and 600 units that had funding earmarked for them.

The minister says he is concerned around the economic argument. I wonder if the minister can advise, on the cancellation of the 1,000 units, how much it would cost British Columbians on the issues around health care costs, criminal justice costs, just on the basis of the facts of these studies.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm delighted the member has articulated some of the arguments she has. Again, I

find myself almost compulsively agreeing with her line of argument and, to a lesser extent, her line of questioning — but certainly with her line of argument. I hope this doesn't degenerate into a kind of love-in between the government and the opposition, but I guess we'll have to live with that danger.

Certainly, the reason why we have undertaken the targeted programming we have with respect to housing in this province is to address the health needs of the most vulnerable in British Columbia. I can tell the member that one of the facts which was well evident to me as a member of the opposition during the tenure of the former government was that we are literally thousands of beds short for the frail elderly in British Columbia, particularly in places like southern Vancouver Island, the lower mainland, the Okanagan and undoubtedly other areas in British Columbia where people particularly retire to as retirement centres.

We clearly have a big challenge ahead. Whether we spend massively or we spend responsibly, we have a challenge ahead because of the demographics. We are, I'm sorry to say — and I'm part of this — an aging society. As we become an increasingly aging society, people are living longer, healthier lives, but there is a point in one's life — and my own father was a case of this for me in the last few years — where a greater level of health care or home care is needed. We have a big challenge in meeting that current and growing demographic challenge.

I'm proud to say that our government is responding to that. We are going to work relentlessly to address that very profound challenge we face. We know — and, again, I know from personal experience — that if an intermediate or long-term care bed is not available, the frail elderly, if they've suffered a stroke or an incapacitating illness, too often find themselves in acute care beds. That is not a good situation for the seniors. I know that when my father suffered a stroke, he was in an acute care bed for some time before he was able to move into extended care at a facility in Salmon Arm. He was very unhappy there. That was not where he wanted to be.

Acute care beds are not well designed or staffed to deal with that. An acute care bed costs us approximately $150 a day when it's filled, whereas assisted living, which would allow a frail, elderly citizen to live with some measure of independence but with health care nearby or available when it's needed, costs us between $60 and $75 a day. We know it does, and I'm delighted to agree with the member opposite that it makes good sense for us to be providing that alternative to acute care beds for the frail elderly or for the incapacitated who clearly can't get along just with home care and who don't want to be in an acute care bed.

That is why this government has committed itself to those 5,000 units over the next five years. I'm proud that today we began the process of fulfilling that commitment. We are looking forward to working with the federal government under the program that we recently signed. We are the first provincial government to sign a federal-provincial affordable housing agreement. Almost $90 million in federal funds will come into play here in British Columbia in the next few years, and it's going to help.

We are going to work — and I've been saying this since the last UBCM — to develop stronger partnerships with local governments as well. I am entirely confident, based on what I know about local governments — based on 17 years of actually being an elected local government official — that local governments will come to the table. They will come with land, with resources, with servicing. They will step up to the plate. They will be strong, positive, beneficial partners to the province in trying to meet that very major challenge which I've articulated.

J. Kwan: The minister tries to intimate that the previous government did not engage in partnerships with local governments, community groups and the private sector on developing affordable housing. He is dead wrong. I would urge him, just for his clarification, so that he won't be ill-informed when he walks out of this House to speak about housing…. The previous government — and not even when I was in government, but the administration before the previous administration — had in fact engaged in creating partnerships with a variety of people including local councils, non-profit and cooperative groups, the private sector, the province and, yes, most recently the federal government.

I would ask the minister to acknowledge that. Housing is one place, perhaps, where the government and the opposition can agree, although the magnitude of how we proceed may be different. It may be one place where we could agree to go after the federal government for additional dollars in supporting affordable housing for British Columbia. I would ask him to check his facts and be factual on this point.

Where we differ is that the minister seems to think that building affordable housing is a drain on the government coffers. He opened with his statements about the expenditure that the government is engaging in — $126 million increasing to $170 million. Somehow that is too expensive. "Unsustainable" tends to be the word that this government likes to use. On the flip side of it, the stats that I read out earlier clearly illustrate that if you invest in affordable housing, you have a greater saving elsewhere.

Yes, I applaud the government. I do applaud them on proceeding with some of the projects today. I would applaud the government if they had actually embarked on the program, at the minimum, that the previous government had committed to. I would applaud wholeheartedly. If the government even moved beyond that, I would be the first on this floor to support the government 100 percent in their scheme for housing, but they haven't done that.

They haven't done that. They've cancelled 1,000 units of affordable housing. That's 1,000 people on that

wait-list of 10,000 who would otherwise get affordable housing, who will now not. That is where we part company. That's where we disagree.

On the notion around housing, building affordable housing is not just to support the people who need housing. It also creates economic activity. The development of affordable housing has a significant economic benefit not just in savings but in construction. Construction of one unit of social housing results in two and a half person-years of employment, and it contributes to economic stimulation through the supply of building supplies and other materials. That has a tremendous economic benefit for British Columbia.

I suspect that the minister would know that and that he would rise up and say: "Yes, we support it as well." Yes, I will support the minister's call for additional partners, because I agree there aren't enough. But he is wrong to suggest that there wasn't any. He is absolutely wrong. Yes, I challenge every single municipality out there — especially the ones that say, "Not in my back yard" — to open up and invite healthy communities to be developed in each and every neighbourhood throughout British Columbia. That includes safe, affordable housing and cooperative housing.

I would agree. We'd like to see more partnership, and the previous government worked hard to do that. To undermine that, quite frankly, the minister is doing a disservice to British Columbians who have worked hard to create those partnerships, including the staff at B.C. Housing for whom I have great admiration and a lot of respect because they are dedicated and compassionate about the job they are to do. That is to deliver housing to British Columbians that is safe, secure and affordable.

The one program under Homes B.C. that targeted replacement housing for residential hotels, the Homeless–At Risk program, has been cancelled by this government. How is this government committed to preventing increased homelessness in the context of ongoing redevelopment in urban centres and the even greater loss of low-income housing that we can expect from development of the Trade and Convention Centre and the impacts of the Olympics?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm delighted to hear the hon. member speak passionately in favour of stronger partnerships with other levels of government, with non-profits, with the private sector and so on. I think that's great. I'm glad she is supporting that, and I salute her for that.

However, I do need to correct her on a couple of points. I have never, at any point in these estimates nor indeed at any other time in my tenure as housing minister, suggested that affordable housing was a drain on government coffers. That is absolutely incorrect. What I have said, Mr. Chair, and I'll say it again for the member's edification, is that we need to have a sustainable budget line for housing in British Columbia. I'm proud to say that we have, with a lot of work, actually developed that sustainable budget line. We will be able to accomplish our goals within that sustainable budget line. How do we do it? Again, with the stronger partnerships with local governments, with the federal government, with the non-profits and so on — that is the way that we do it.

Indeed, not only stronger partnerships but mandatory partnerships. We're not going to be proceeding with projects unless we see strong evidence of commitment from all of those potential partners that this is a facility or this is a housing project that they not only welcome but that they are prepared to bring equity partnership resources to the table to help see it fulfilled.

That's certainly the point I was attempting to make. It appears that the member is persuaded of that, and I'm glad to hear it. In doing so, we will make our dollars go further. One of the old expressions in political science is that politics is the allocation of scarce resources, and indeed that's what we are doing here. We are allocating scarce resources. We believe that stronger partnerships will in fact ensure that we get the maximum public benefit for every housing dollar that we invest in British Columbia.

I am similarly delighted to hear the member's words of praise for B.C. Housing. I think that's great. I have just tremendously enjoyed working with B.C. Housing over these last nine months. Like the hon. member, I am very much impressed by the energy, the expertise, the knowledge that B.C. Housing and staff — Shayne and his team — bring to the table. They're a tremendous resource for this government as they were for the former government. I know that at every turn they provide us with the kind of professional, knowledgable advice that every government, whether it's the former government or our government, desperately need.

Again, I share in her salute to B.C. Housing. I'm very much an admirer of the organization, and I know they are going to be a critical resource in helping us to achieve our housing goals over the next few years.

I may have misspoken, Mr. Chair, on one point. I'm not sure whether I did or not, but let's clarify it for the record. In fact, the figure for assisted living is correct: from $60 to $75 is the cost per day for an assisted-living unit. The cost for an acute care bed is $350 to $900 a day, depending on circumstance, and a residential care bed is approximately $150 a day. Again, that just increases the kind of dramatic importance of moving ahead with the health focus that we have in the reformed housing program of this government.

I also need to correct the member on a couple of other points. Again, the challenge that we have thrown out to the housing projects that comprise the 1,005 units was not to go away but rather to look at what they can do to strengthen their partnership with the provincial government. There are at least a few of the projects, which unfortunately we couldn't proceed with at this point in time, that have brought commendable partnership resources to the table. Again, when we see in some areas a strengthening of the resources that can

be brought to the table, we will be able to announce even more projects that are going to fit into that area.

As well, the member — entirely incorrectly, apparently…. I'm not sure where she's getting her information around this point about the cancelling of the homeless program. The Homeless–At Risk component of Homes B.C. was not cancelled. In fact, five of the 20 projects that were announced today are specifically targeted at the homeless. I'll just mention, for example, the Dr. Peter AIDS Foundation, where we actually were hosted today; the Lu'Ma Native Housing Society; the Options: Services to Communities Society in Surrey; the Salvation Army, B.C. South Division — a tremendous project there, where literally the private sector has brought millions of dollars into play to bring that project forward. The Salvation Army has just done a wonderful, totally commendable job of putting that project together — a really remarkable project. As well, there's the St. James Community Services Society on East 16th in Vancouver and the YWCA on East Hastings Street. All of those projects are targeted to the homeless at risk.

We believe, as apparently the member does, that we need to try to address the huge challenge we face around the homeless at risk. While I don't disagree with her sentiment around the importance of it, perhaps she can step up and correct the record with respect to the Homeless–At Risk program being cancelled.

J. Kwan: I just had staff send up the most recent B.C. Housing annual report. In it, it actually recognizes different partnerships that were in place in developing housing: the city of Vancouver, the Vancouver-Richmond health board, the Main and Hastings Community Development Society, the Tenants Rights Action Coalition, CMHC — the whole variety of different partners that have contributed in making housing a reality for many British Columbians, and their strong effort. It really was their strong effort in working with the previous government in getting the 2,300-unit allocation forward. Make no mistake about it. It's been acknowledged in the minister's own annual report. It actually references a variety of different projects. I'll get into the details of specific projects at a later time.

I'm glad to hear that the Homeless–At Risk program is not cancelled. The community was under the impression that it was. They asked me to ask that question, so I'm glad that is clarified. I assume from the minister that the program will continue not just for this year but for following years as well. I see the minister nodding, so that, too, is good news for British Columbians. We'll watch and see what happens with this minister and this government's development.

Of course, the minister was trying to take credit, I think, for not cancelling housing projects that were approved by the previous government and that had been under construction by the previous government. I'm just curious, actually, with this new government in place; they say they support housing. The minister says he supports housing. How many projects has he initiated under this government — on their own, without the record of the previous government?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm glad to hear the member quote the latest B.C. Housing report. Apparently, I'm quoted in it. Is that correct, member — I'm quoted in it?

Hon. G. Abbott: Oh, staff. Okay, I'm sorry. I thought, Mr. Chair, that for me to say, I guess, rather magnanimous, generous things about the former government in a report of that sort would be consistent with the kind of non-partisan and professional bearing that I bring to the position, so I wouldn't have been surprised to hear that.

We know that the former government didn't do everything wrong. I mean, I think it would be wrong to intimate that. I mean, they did many things wrong, but they didn't do everything wrong. And yes, even the former government was able to engage partners in B.C. Housing projects. Again, I, in my own non-partisan and non-confrontational way, salute the former government for those successes that they were able to achieve.

However, I do want to say — and I hope the member will embrace this non-confrontational, non-partisan spirit that I'm imparting here — that the important thing is that we move to stretching those scarce public resources even further; that we move to a stronger partnership model, a mandatory partnership model that ensures every public tax dollar — and remember, we're taking those out of everybody's pockets — is maximized.

What we're doing — and again, we've talked about it earlier — is to develop as many housing units as possible by partnering with the federal government, local government, the private sector and non-profits. There's an array of very generous, very hard-working partners that come into play on these things. Surely every member of this House, including the members of the opposition, would agree that what we need to do is not stand up and take credit for this or that but, rather, ensure that we put the maximum resources into that area so that we get the maximum bang for every dollar we invest in that area.

Just to review for the hon. member, the provincial government's commitment to new non-profit housing since October 2001 is the 697 units we announced today, and we have 1,383 units that are currently under construction. Just for the member's edification, when I made the very difficult decision to bring the 1,702 under review, those were projects that had not yet begun the construction phase. In some cases, they had made investments in land and so on, but they had not yet undertaken construction. Those that had undertaken construction we have allowed to proceed through to completion, because, again, we believe it's very important we do that. Additionally, 673 units have been completed since October 2001, bringing the total to 2,753 units.

Again, I have never tried in — now, amazingly enough — 23 years in public office to always be pointing at the number on the back of the jersey and taking credit for things. Surely, the important point is that we have now put ourselves in the position of seeing 2,753 additional affordable housing units made available for British Columbians who, clearly, very much need those units. The member can engage in whatever credit-grabbing exercise she likes; that's not important to me. The important thing is that we have and we are putting into place those units, and we will be seeing a lot more units like that as we move forward into the future.

J. Kwan: The issue is not about claiming credit, not at all. The issue is about discrediting. In this House I think we're honour-bound. The issue that I take with the minister is where he tries to discredit other people, including the former government, in a variety of different areas, including the area of housing, when he tries to intimate that the projects that are proceeding now — the 700 or so that are proceeding and the ones that have been under construction — were somehow…. Somehow the previous government hadn't worked hard enough in creating partnerships, and somehow the community hadn't worked hard enough to bring additional dollars to the table, and so on.

That is wrong, and I think it does a disservice to B.C. Housing and their staff. I think it does a disservice to the community who's worked hard in creating those partnerships. I think it does a disservice to the city of Vancouver and the municipalities that have contributed to this process. I think it does a disservice to anyone who's been a strong advocate around housing. That is why I raised the point.

The minister talks about the approval of the housing projects, but yet there are about a thousand units that have been cancelled. The minister even acknowledged that out of those 1,000 units, some of the non-profits have invested in land because they were approved, and they were trying to meet the conditions of the government to move forward on these projects. Now that these projects are cancelled, is the minister anticipating lawsuits from the non-profits on the costs that have been assumed by these non-profits in trying to meet the conditions of government when they got the unit allocation? If so, how much money is set aside in his budget to deal with pending lawsuits?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'd be pleased to respond to the suggestions and the question the member has. Again, I think this is the important thing: this government is going to be spending more on housing in the coming fiscal year than we ever have at any point in the history of British Columbia — $142 million. That includes B.C. Housing and includes sponsoring ministries that have been partners with us.

I know the member doesn't want to hear this, but I'm glad to tell her. I'm trying to do this in the most non-partisan and non-confrontational way I can. I think it is completely irrelevant who announced the projects. I think that's completely irrelevant. Whether the former government announced it six times or whether we announced it is really irrelevant. It's perhaps more important to say who is going to pay for it.

This government is going to be paying for all of the projects I've talked about. That's included in the $142 million. That's the case. What's really important, what's really relevant is that every one of the dollars of the $142 million we'll be investing in housing is in fact taxpayers' dollars. They're not NDP government dollars. They're not B.C. Liberal government dollars. Those are taxpayers' dollars.

Being such, it's irrelevant who wants to step up to the plate and try to take credit for it. They are taxpayers' dollars, and it is our responsibility. Again, the member opposite may disagree, but it's our responsibility as a government to ensure that every one of those $142 million in taxpayers' dollars we are going to invest secures the maximum public good.

The only way to ensure that we secure the maximum public good is to partner as extensively and as thoroughly as we possibly can. That's why we have worked so very hard with the federal government to become the first province in Canada to sign the federal-provincial affordable housing agreement. That's why we're working very hard with municipalities across this province to see how they can bring more resources to bear.

That's why we're talking to non-profits across this province about what they can do. That's why we repealed the regressive and onerous Housing Construction (Elderly Citizens) Act — so that they could have more resources and have more control over their own resources. We are working very hard to ensure that every single one of those 142 million taxpayer dollars procures the maximum public good. In fact, I'm very confident we're going to do that.

In terms of the member's latter question about the 1,005 units, we believe that at least a portion of those, with some additional strengthening of the equity partnership they can bring, will in fact be able to proceed. They can't today, but we believe that down the line, they will. Again, I don't want to discourage any of them from taking up the challenge, but it is probable — and I'm being entirely honest here — that some of the projects may not proceed, because in some cases they actually bring no equity to the table. They don't add any particular element of partnership to the agreement.

We've advised those projects of that, and we will be engaging with them in discussions around what be an appropriate reimbursement if in fact it is appropriate to the circumstance. Again, we do hope that they take up the challenge, that they appreciate this is a government that's being honest with them about its fiscal responsibility. I believe that they will step up to the plate. We're going to see a lot of good things here from the housing sectors in British Columbia in the years ahead.

J. Kwan: I'll do this one more time, and then I'm going to move on. What I was trying to get at to the minister — and he still refuses to acknowledge it — is that it isn't about credit. The minister fails to understand my point.

My point is that when he discredits the work of the previous group of people, all the partners involved in creating affordable housing, he discredits…. Just in the municipalities that have been partners in creating housing by contributing either land or equity to the development of affordable housing…. Some of them include Chetwynd, Dawson Creek, Fort St. John, the greater Vancouver regional district, Kamloops, Kimberley, Saanich, Sparwood, Summerland, North Van, Nanaimo, Nanaimo regional district, Lake Cowichan, Maple Ridge, Midway. Many communities have been out there. These are just municipalities, regional districts. There are others, and I can read off a list of community groups that have participated in that.

I'm asking the minister to acknowledge them. Do not discredit their efforts. Do not discredit the efforts of staff who have worked hard to create the housing projects that are now in our communities, those that are under construction and the ones that have been approved by this government ? the 700. That is my point.

The question on the 1,000 units that have been cancelled. The minister says he hopes that these projects will proceed. It sounds to me like the ones that don't have partnerships at all are likely not going to proceed, but it sounds to me like there is a B list, if you will, that will come forward for approval at a later date. When does the minister expect, at this later date, that those projects will be announced?

Does the minister also understand that for a lot of these societies that hang in there, with the conditional approval and allocation that they had, the expenditure that their society had put forward, the longer the government drags on the process of approval, the higher risk they are in financially? The boards of those societies are ultimately responsible, and they may not be able to carry those costs for the long term. Even though some of them have partnership dollars, they may not be able to continue, because the longer this process goes on, the harder it is for them to maintain — especially those who have acquired land, who may have a mortgage in place, and so on.

I was just in Williams Lake, actually. I know a seniors housing project there. The society bought the land there, and they carry a mortgage. They're fundraising for it. I actually didn't see the approval for this project in Williams Lake, so the society would actually have to assume costs. I don't know whether they can carry on or not. They were asking me whether or not their project will proceed, which I don't have the answer for.

When will the minister announce this B list? And for the societies that have lost money as a result of that, would the government simply walk up to the plate and be honest with them and say: "We understand that you've lost money because of the previous allocation that was awarded to you, because you have spent money in trying to meet the conditions of government. Now that the project is not going to proceed, we'll reimburse you for all the loss that you have incurred"?

Hon. G. Abbott: In my quiet, dispassionate non-partisan way, I'll try to respond to the suggestions that have been made by the member. First of all, I have never said, nor will I ever say anything that will detract from the investment, from the resources that local governments, non-profits and others have over decades put toward affordable housing in British Columbia.

The member likes to rattle rhetoric off like I'm discrediting partners. That is an absurdity. I can do nothing but salute the dedication, the commitment, that partners over decades have made with respect to providing affordable housing for the most vulnerable citizens in British Columbia. No amount of deconstruction, misconstruction and concoction on the part of the member opposite will change that, because I never would.

I spent a long time, 17 years, in local government before I ever came here. I know many people in local government in British Columbia on a first-name basis. I have nothing but the greatest respect for them. In fact, if we want to talk about respect and how local government has been treated by governments, I would invite the member to compare the record of this government…. I don't want to jump ahead to the local government section of this. I'm sure that will be a great adventure in its own right, but I do want to just note that as we try to measure the respect our respective governments bring to the table.

I remember very clearly in November of 1996, as the Municipal Affairs critic of the day for the official opposition, hearing that without any kind of consultation, without any kind of notice, the former NDP government had unilaterally slashed $113 million in transfers from the province to local governments, completely in breach of an act called the Local Government Grants Act which that former government had just put in place some months before. It was, I think, a most remarkable moment in the history of the relationship between the province and its municipalities.

For a provincial government to turn around, without consultation, without notice, square in the middle of the budgeting process of local government, and announce $113 million in transfer reductions is remarkable. Now, is that indicative of respect? Well, I guess maybe the former…. I think I might be correct this time. I mistakenly, obviously, identified the member as a former housing minister, and I apologize for doing that. I believe she is a former Municipal Affairs minister — not at that particularly shameful period in the record of the former government. I know she is a former Municipal Affairs minister, as I am today — not a former one, but a municipal affairs minister. I guess she can tell us tonight or tomorrow, when we're doing municipal affairs, how that arbitrary, unilateral slashing of $113 million in transfers was indicative of respect by the province for its municipal partners.

Contrast that, hon. Chair, to the way we have managed our relationship with local government. We have protected local government across the board — $130 million, small communities grants, etc. We'll talk about all that tomorrow, no doubt, but there is a very striking difference between the level of respect that's accorded by this government as compared to the level of respect that was accorded by the former government.

I'm not going to sit by and be accused of disrespect by this member, I can tell you. Further, if the member wants to make a point here about respect for the non-profit sector, I still haven't heard an answer from her with respect to the Housing Construction (Elderly Citizens) Act — how non-profits implored the former government to get rid of that particularly onerous, useless and destructive piece of red tape, why for years and years that former government ignored the pleas of the non-profit sector.

Was that indicative of respect? I don't think so. Was our repeal of that particularly nasty piece of work respectful? Yeah, I do think so, and I'm proud that this government undertook to do that.

Now, in terms of the management of this particularly difficult business of bringing those 1,702 units under review, let me say again…. I'm going to be blunt and honest about this: it was not the best day in my life when, last October — I think it was on the eve, in fact, of Affordable Housing Week — I had to bring those. The member's now feeling sorry that she wasn't able to point that out herself, I'm sure. It was not the best day of my life when I had to do that, but clearly, if we were going to have a sustainable, responsible budget line, we had to do that.

I could have done like the former government did with the fast-ferries project, where we suddenly…. "Oh, everything's okay. We're going to have those three boats completed for $177 million," as I think the former Premier said, "right down to the toilet paper."

"Everything's fine," they said. For years and years they said: "Everything's fine with that ferry project. It's great, it's wonderful, it's the best thing ever, and we're going to do it all for $177 million." It wasn't until they were caught out….

The Chair: Order, members. Order, members. I think we'd better stick to housing tonight.

Hon. G. Abbott: Well, I'm disappointed. I was just rising to a certain rhetorical crescendo, at which point I was going to revert to my non-partisan, dispassionate self. Thank you for reminding me of that.

The point I was going to make, hon. Chair…. Forgive me for that rhetorical flourish. Perhaps the hon. member opposite's wearing on me a little bit, or maybe I'm being inspired by her to rhetorical heights.

The fact of the matter is: as soon as we knew that there was a problem with respect to those units, I let them know. We let them know. We didn't try to hide the fact that we had a problem. I let them know, actually, at the unfortunate time of the eve of Affordable Housing Week, but I let them know. I knew that I was going to take a beating on that point. I knew it, but I was honest enough and gutsy enough to stand up to the plate and take it. That's what I did. I stood up to the plate and took it.

Unlike the former government, I was entirely honest about the situation we faced — entirely honest. We let the non-profits and the municipalities know we had a problem. We let them know we had some work to do. We've done that work, we've strengthened those partnerships, and now we're able to move ahead.

Further, for those projects that will not be able to proceed…. Again, I do want to say that we have put the challenge out there, because I know British Columbians will be bringing more resources to bear to ensure that the housing needs in their communities are met. I'm convinced of that point, but if there are projects out there that cannot or will not proceed, we will work with them to provide fair, reasonable, appropriate mitigation for any costs they may have incurred.

J. Kwan: I would ask lots of questions, and I know that we'll have lots of time to do that tomorrow and next week, as we carry through. I am noting the time, so I will just simply respond very quickly on one item: the issue around respect — let's just talk about that a little bit — and the issue around off-loading.

What has the new era done with this government? Increased PSTs — that cost was off-loaded to municipalities. Increased property taxes — the cost was off-loaded to citizens in British Columbia. Increased costs of MSP premiums — off-loaded to municipalities. Increase in small community….

The Chair: Member, I think we should stick to the housing, if we could. I think this is the second time. The minister was told to stick to housing, and I'll ask you to do the same thing.

J. Kwan: Oh, yes. I was rising to the challenge of the minister's non-partisanship approach in this House. I thought he was so eager to talk about the community charter issue. I thought maybe we'd just jump around and do that. After all, he is the minister responsible for that area as well.

Please spare me the lecture from this government on the issue around respect. I'll have more to say about that tomorrow.

Noting the time, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

J. MacPhail: This is my first time in the small House and these estimates, so I hope I am following proper procedure. I'm sure you'll call me to task, as they do in the big House, when I get out of hand.

Anyway, thanks very much for this opportunity. My colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has done some work with the Minister of Education. I want to do some work now talking about the broader concepts in terms of the funding but actually relating it to my own school board, which is the Vancouver school board. I think there have been documents shared. The minister has seen the documents from the Vancouver school board.

I want to start, first of all, with the salary increase, if I may. The collective agreement that was just imposed by the government goes back to July 1, 2001. The 2.5 percent increase is for 2001. The ministry, as I understand it, has given the Vancouver school board a one-time grant for that 2.5 percent. The funding allocated to the Vancouver school board this year is the general allocation of $364 million plus $5.6 million for the salary increase of '01-02. Is that correct?

J. MacPhail: My apologies. I haven't been in here yet. Could we introduce staff? I'm familiar with some but not all.

Hon. C. Clark: I have Barry Anderson, who's a special adviser to the deputy; of course, my deputy, Emery Dosdall; Keith Miller, director of capital; Tom Vincent, who is our assistant deputy minister for management services; and we have Jacquie Kendall from school finance in the gallery.

All right, so it's a one-time grant. What I need to understand is…. I'll work it through and see if the minister agrees with me or not. The $5.6 million is a one-time grant that doesn't get added to the base.

J. MacPhail: Does the school board know that next year their grant will be…? Will the grant next year be $369.6 million to the Vancouver school board?

J. MacPhail: No, no. My question was: the base was $364 million, and there is a one-time grant over and above that of $5.6 million. Will the grant in subsequent years be $369.6 million?

Hon. C. Clark: It's built into the base. We met with the Vancouver school board today, and we've clarified that with them.

J. MacPhail: I wasn't at the meeting though, so the minister has to clarify it for me. What is the number they'll be receiving next year?

Hon. C. Clark: The amount the Vancouver school board gets next year — we talked to them about this today, and I'm sure the member will remember this from when she was a minister — will vary, depending on the numbers they have in the school population and the characteristics of that student population.

J. MacPhail: Yeah, I'm just looking for answers here. New government, new way of doing things. Maybe we can answer it this way. If everything stays the same, what is the grant next year for the Vancouver school board?

Hon. C. Clark: We haven't done a calculation based on everything staying the same. We never do that. We do calculations based on our predictions. Our prediction — and of course this is a prediction — is that it will be $367.1 million.

J. MacPhail: Okay. So the Vancouver school board was told today that the grant goes up from $364 million to $367.1 million if everything stays the same. Actually, it would be useful, then, if the minister explains the discussions she had with the Vancouver school board so I, as the MLA, understand as well.

Hon. C. Clark: I didn't actually meet with the school board today. I was in the House. My officials met with officials from the school board today over in Vancouver.

What I said in my previous answer was that we haven't done a calculation based on everything staying the same. We've done a calculation based on our predictions of what things will look like come September. Of course, those are subject to change based on the reality when we get there. The $367.1 million is the estimate of what that funding would be.

J. MacPhail: What's the estimate based on? What would be the increase of $3.1 million? The $364 million plus the $5.6 million is the total amount available for '02-03 as I understand it, so the $367.1 million would be the estimate for '03-04 that staff gave to the Vancouver school board. You know what? Why don't the staff just tell the minister what they told the Vancouver school board, and we could save a lot of time.

Hon. C. Clark: Well, we'd certainly save some time if the member would review Hansard from yesterday. We did go over some of this, but I'd be happy to go over it again. The amount the Vancouver school board got in '01-02 was $364 million. That's the amount that was in the blue book for '01-02. For '02-03 it's $367.1 million.

J. MacPhail: Okay. The $364 million for '02-03 is the same as it was for '01-02, as I understand it. Is that correct? We don't need to take cheap shots about reading Hansard, etc. I'm working flat out. This is my school board, and I have a right to ask these questions, so bear with me, and we'll get through this. In '01-02 did the school board receive $364 million? Then in '02-03 they receive $364 million?

Hon. C. Clark: I'm happy to bear with the member. That's why I'm continuing to answer the questions. The amount in '01-02 in the blue book is $364 million. The amount we have budgeted for them, based on our predictions — again, I caution that predictions are not always accurate; in fact they never are, based on enrolment, because that will change — is $367.1 million.

J. MacPhail: It's actually worse than I thought. In '01-02 the budget was $364 million, and I was assuming that for '02-03 the grant of $5.6 million would make the '02-03 funding for the Vancouver school board $369.6 million, because it's a one-time grant on top of the flat funding. I thought the minister had said the salary increase for the first year of the settlement would be funded by the ministry. Perhaps the minister could articulate. Is that nine months of '01-02 and three months of '02-03? How is that broken up?

Hon. C. Clark: The member is incorrect. The amount is not a one-time grant; it's built into the base. It was built into the base for '01-02, and it carries through for '02-03 and '03-04. As she may recall, the school year and the budget year for government are different, so 7/10 comes out of '01-02, and 3/10 comes out of '02-03.

J. MacPhail: Yes, and that's why I asked the question whether it was for nine months of the year of '01-02 versus three months for '02-03.

All right, let's work that through, then. We have $367.1 million for this year, '02-03. That's to fund the $5.6 million flat funding, which the minister calls protection of funding, plus the first year's salary increase covering July 1, '01, to June 30, '02.

Then the next year, which would be July 1, '02, till March 31, '03, there's an additional 9/12 of another $5.6 million that gets added to the salary bill plus a rollup of the first $5.6 million. That's my understanding. Is that the minister's understanding?

Hon. C. Clark: The first 7/10 of the salary increase comes out of '01-02; the next 3/10 comes out of '02-03; the next 7/10 comes out of '02-03; and the next 3/10 comes out of '03-04 — and for the following year as well.

J. MacPhail: But it's $5.6 million. The minister is giving $5.6 million for the first year of the collective agreement. That $5.6 million, as I understand she's now saying, carries forward into the next year, but there's another $5.6 million.

J. MacPhail: No, it's okay. These are important figures. I don't mind waiting at all.

The first cost is $5.6 million for the first year of the collective agreement, but the second year of the collective agreement is not just $5.6 million. It's the first $5.6 million that was incurred for the first 2½ percent and the second 2½ percent, for another $5.6 million, which means in '02-03 the costs are really $11.2 million for the Vancouver school board, as of '02-03. I know we're having difficulty because the school year is different than the budget year, so let's just talk about fiscal years, shall we? Is my understanding correct?

So in '02-03 we have an additional $11.2 million of pressure just on salary increases. As I understand it, staff are saying the base has been lifted by $5.6 million. It's not a grant; it's an actual raising of the base. The base of what the board has to pay has gone up to $11.2 million. Then the following year to the completion of…. I think the collective agreement expires June 30, '04. Is that correct?

J. MacPhail: In '02-03 we have a real pressure of $11.2 million in that year, and then in '03-04 we have a real pressure of $5.6 million, another $5.6 million and another $5.6 million, which totals $16.8 million, which is the full cost on an annual basis of increasing the salary grid by 7½ percent.

Hon. C. Clark: No, that's not correct. As I said a couple of times, the $5.6 million or the 2½ percent is built in for all three years, so the pressure…. She's doubling what she's done in her calculation. This is something the Vancouver school board did as well: doubled the number in '02-03.

J. MacPhail: No, I'm not talking about the government's funding. I'm talking about the pressures of the Vancouver school board, not necessarily just yet what the government is contributing to that. Let me put it this way then. The salary grid, the end level wage increase, by the completion of the collective agreement will be an annualized pressure of $28 million for the Vancouver school board, what they're paying extra to teachers.

The Chair: Before we continue, I would just remind everyone to address your questions and answers to the Chair, please. Thank you.

J. MacPhail: Do we still have the rules where the deputy can speak in this chamber? I'm fine to have that. I thought that was the…. I'm fine with that.

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, I'm delighted to answer the questions for the member. I do want to make sure the numbers that I'm giving her are correct.

J. MacPhail: That wasn't a cheap shot. I'm just saying that in this chamber we have that rule.

Hon. C. Clark: We know that this member isn't…. No one would ever accuse her of making cheap shots. That's for sure.

Hon. C. Clark: In the calculation she's made, she has added $5.6 million in the first year. There's $5.6 million in the first year, two times $5.6 million in the second year and three times $5.6 million in the third year. In terms of the amount we've provided provincewide, that's about $300 million. Vancouver school district will have a share of that, and the provincial government is covering about $150 million of that — about half of it.

J. MacPhail: Yeah, my question is about the Vancouver school board. We're working with the Vancouver school board. I'm the local MLA for the Vancouver school board. The cumulative pressure over the term of the collective agreement for the Vancouver school board, as I understand it, is $28 million on teachers' salaries.

Hon. C. Clark: Perhaps the member could clarify for the chamber how she's calculated and ended up with the number $28 million.

J. MacPhail: Sure. I understand we have to make allowances for the difference between the school year and the fiscal year, but as I understand it, in the year '02-03 the school board of Vancouver will be paying the first $5.6 million from year 1 of the collective agreement, and then that expenditure carries on into the second year, '02-03, as well. You're spending $5.6 million more on teachers' salaries as a result of year 1 of the collective agreement, and that expenditure carries through — well, forever, actually.

In the second year you're not only paying the full $5.6 million from the first year, but also that expenditure carries through in the second year, and there's another $5.6 million. So the first year of the collective agreement creates an expenditure over two years of $11.2 million to pay for year 1.

In '03-04 you have the cumulative total — I'm not talking about the annual expenditure; I'm talking about the cumulative total — which is $5.6 million, $5.6 million plus $5.6 million. It's cumulative versus annualized. That equals $16.8 million. Added to the $11.2 million of the first year, that gives a total of $28 million.

Hon. C. Clark: Over three years the government is funding $16.8 million of the pressures, and the total pressures are $33.6 million.

J. MacPhail: Okay. That's fine. The $16.8 million is because the minister clarified today that it's not a one-time grant. It's added to the base. Okay. Good. The $33 million, I assume, is because we're calculating on the basis of the real cost to the school board in terms of the school year. We have $33 million minus $16.8 million. What's that? That's $16.2 million in cost pressures for the school board just on salaries.

The pressure is $16.8 million in terms of pressures from the salary increases over the service plan the minister offered. What is the school board's reaction to that? Perhaps the staff, through the minister, could give the school board's reaction to the minister suggesting she's protecting education funding, given that

there's a shortfall, just on the salary increases, of $16.8 million to one school board.

Hon. C. Clark: We sat down with them for a period of time today. We clarified the situation. We walked through the budget with them. They certainly continue to have concerns. This is something we go through every year. I'm sure the member will remember from when she was a minister. She was even the Minister of Education. I don't know if she was ever the Minister of Education around budget time. This is something we go through every year. Certainly, the school district is predicting doom and gloom. I'm quite confident the doom-and-gloom numbers will be dramatically reduced as we get closer to budget time.

J. MacPhail: That's not my experience with the school boards. My experience with the school boards is that yes, they have differing views of the funding arrangements, but never, ever to this degree. With the removal of targeted funding, school boards…. While the minister claims there's greater flexibility, actually, it's my view that it gives them less flexibility as a school board, having to manage all of the pressures without targeted funding.

What I meant was: did the school board accept this? I haven't had my meeting with the school board yet. The school board chair has called for a meeting, but she's trying to arrange it so that all the Vancouver MLAs can attend together. I have to wait until that can occur. Did the school board accept this as protection of school funding?

Hon. C. Clark: As I've said a number of times in these debates, we have protected education funding. We've done that in an era where we have had to take some pretty dramatic measures with many, many other ministries. We are the only government in the country that has undertaken a full restructuring and has protected education funding. The level for education funding is the same this year as it was last year, even though there are fewer students to educate.

Yesterday and the day before, when we went through this debate at length with her colleague, we talked specifically about why there was some money less to distribute to school boards than there was the year before. We've been through that a fair amount in this debate. The point at the end of it, though, is that we have protected education funding in very, very difficult circumstances, despite the fact there is declining enrolment.

Is any school board ever happy that they don't get a whole lot more money than they actually got in their budget in any year? No, of course not. We have done the very, very best we can, given the fiscal circumstances we find ourselves in.

J. MacPhail: That's a very different message than the minister was sending just a few months ago. I guess now the school boards are the whiners. Before it was the teachers. I guess now it's the school boards that are whining inappropriately, which is very, very interesting. "Are school boards ever happy?" the minister says, as if that's a reason that she can justify all of her actions.

I also don't at all intend to engage with this minister in a discussion of what my experience was. This minister campaigned vigorously, forcefully, with a great deal of certainty, that the world would be better with the minister in charge. All I'm trying to figure out, now that the minister and her government are in charge, is how the world is better, not how it's the same as before, not "Gosh, this is what school boards go through all the time, so let's not worry about their whining." Let's figure out how the world is better, as was promised.

Here's what the now Premier said 13 months ago: "A B.C. Liberal government will give school boards multi-year funding envelopes to improve long-term education planning and to put a stop to the government's manipulation of the budget process." That's the commitment. What I want to know is how this three-year budget the government has put forward is an improvement to long-term education planning, not that it's clearer because the bad news has been received and so they know how much less they have to work with. How is it an improvement to long-term education planning?

Hon. C. Clark: We have this year introduced a new funding formula, which is something school districts have asked for, for a long time, not just of this government but of previous governments. We made a commitment in this election that we would deliver on that, and we have. We have given them a funding formula that allows them to make decisions based on local needs, which is a big change.

Previous governments believed those decisions rested better in Victoria. I fundamentally disagree with that. If that's the direction the member believes government should go in, that's fine. She's entitled to her views. I fundamentally disagree with the view, though, that Victoria makes necessarily better decisions about education than local school boards do. They know their communities. We respect the ability of local boards to do that. They have been given the right to do that under the law. Yes, we have given them more flexibility, and every school board in the province, when I met with them over the summer, told us that was long overdue. We've certainly, certainly delivered that for them.

Secondly, I want to make this point. The member's mischaracterization of my comments is totally unfair. This government and this minister have worked harder with school districts than any minister, I would argue, in the memory of many, many school board chairs in this province. In fact, many of them have said that — that we have worked more closely with school districts and shown more respect for them than any government they can remember. Parents say the same thing.

School superintendents say the same thing. In fact, many, many education partners say the same thing.

I certainly want to dispute the suggestion that somehow I am out here to suggest that school boards aren't doing their jobs. I think they're working extremely hard on behalf of their constituents. That's certainly true of the Vancouver school board as well.

The member also asked how we are going to make a better B.C. How does this budget make a better B.C.? The answer to that is this. British Columbia was in a dark, dark place for a long time under the previous government. It was a dark place where we couldn't expect to do better year after year, where British Columbians would leave our province to go to greener pastures, not just in Canada but all over the world. For the first time, with this budget, people are starting to see a light at the end of the tunnel, and that's where we're headed. We're on a train. We're going down the track as fast as we can so we can be out in that sunshine and out of this tunnel her government put us into.

Are we on a track for a better British Columbia? Does this budget get us there? Absolutely it does. Will that happen tomorrow or the next day? No, it won't, but the fact is that this government is making the decisions that need to be made in order for us to get out into the sunshine at the end of that tunnel.

J. MacPhail: Sorry, Madam Chair. Maybe the minister didn't have a chance to get a supper break. I'm just quoting from the Premier. "A B.C. Liberal government will give school boards multi-year funding envelopes to improve long-term education planning." My question was: how does this help improve long-term education planning? I'm not sure what the minister was addressing.

Hon. C. Clark: I guess the challenge for the member in offering a very long prologue to her actual question is that she might get a long answer as well. That's certainly what she got. She certainly got an answer almost as long, I think, as her question. We could certainly keep that up tonight if she'd like.

The direct answer to her question is this. We have built a funding formula that is stable. Previous governments used to take the bottom line and then shift around all the factors in the funding formula to meet the bottom line. It wasn't fair, it wasn't predictable, and it certainly wasn't equitable between districts. What we've done is build a formula that's fair and predictable, that school districts can expect will be stable and that won't change every single year because the government wants to shift around to meet the bottom line. That's not going to happen.

We're not going to say, "Well, let's add in a program here, take away a program here, give a district over here a little more, take a little bit away from these guys," and shuffle it all around. That isn't fair to school districts. It's not predictable, and it means government plays favourites district to district based on where they've elected their friends. We don't want to live in that kind of world anymore. School districts have told us they don't like that method of funding. That's why we've moved away from it, and that's why we've created a funding formula that's stable and predictable and that means they're not constantly operating in an air of uncertainty.

J. MacPhail: Okay. Given that the Vancouver school board, who the staff had a meeting with today, have now got three years at $367.1 million, I think, how is the Vancouver school board reacting to that in terms of it being a better world? What conclusions did they come to in terms of how this made their long-term education planning better?

Hon. C. Clark: School districts, as I said, have all asked us for a stable, predictable funding formula. We've delivered that. One of the things I pointed out to her colleague yesterday, I think, and the day before, in answer to a very similar question, was this: while school districts may be happy with the funding formula, they may not be happy with the funding they received. We need to differentiate between those two things. I think it's fair to say that the Vancouver school district is, in general, quite pleased with the funding formula we introduced.

J. MacPhail: I know that for school boards it may be interesting that the funding formula is superior, but I expect that for parents and students the actual amount of funding is the key.

There was a letter here March 12 from the Vancouver school board. I'm sure staff has seen this. Has this now been corrected? Has the Vancouver school board corrected this, and will they be issuing another one? I think the minister's had a chance to see this. This document was provided to her yesterday. I'd be happy to send it across to the minister. I assume this is what the staff worked with today. I'll repeat it. Has that been corrected after the staff met with the school board today? What I asked in my question was: will that be corrected by the school board?

Hon. C. Clark: We had a discussion with the school district today. We've identified, I hope, some areas where we disagree about the way they've built their budget — not the choices they made in their budget, certainly, but the numbers on which they've premised their budget. That discussion is ongoing.

J. MacPhail: You see, this is my school board. The school board is keeping the public up to date in terms of what the implications are for the budget. I actually didn't know that the staff would be meeting with the school board today. I'm curious. Is there a document that will be coming out that reflects the change — whether the staff discussed that with the Vancouver school board today or not?

Hon. C. Clark: As I understand it, the staff who were present did not demand that the Vancouver

school board put out a press release supporting the government or supporting some agreement that had been made at the meeting. That's not the way we are trying to run a cooperative relationship with school districts. I understand that that kind of thing was common under previous governments. We aren't doing that.

J. MacPhail: That's not what I was asking for. I was merely asking whether staff had reached agreement with the school board on different numbers in what the deficit is. That's all. I'm not sure what the minister was addressing under that.

Hon. C. Clark: As I said a couple of minutes ago, the staff sat with the district. We talked about the numbers. They identified some areas where they disagreed, and that discussion is ongoing.

Hon. C. Clark: We'll continue our discussion with the Vancouver school board. As always, our contacts with school districts are important, and the lines of communication are always open. The school district will continue building its budget, and we'll continue to work with them.

J. MacPhail: I'm just wondering whether the staff could indicate when they'll be meeting again with the Vancouver school board.

Hon. C. Clark: I don't think they set a definite date at their most recent meeting today.

J. MacPhail: The consequences of the budget will take effect fairly shortly in Vancouver. There are layoff provisions that have to be acknowledged. As I understand it, there are some cancellations of programs, etc. I'm just wondering, in terms of my own school board, what either the deputy or the staff is thinking about in terms of reaching a conclusion on how this budget for the Vancouver school board can work to avoid cuts.

Hon. C. Clark: The Ministry of Education doesn't write budgets for school boards. We give a funding allocation for school boards, then they write up their budgets. I think it would be a little bit impertinent for me as minister to suggest that we are going to sit and draw up their budget for them. We aren't going to do that. Their job is to write up their budget, as it always has been. I'm sure they will continue to draw up their budget. We are here to help and here to assist and here to work through that with them at their request.

J. MacPhail: Yikes. Does that mean if the school board has to cut programs, so be it?

Hon. C. Clark: School districts make decisions about how they design their budgets. The provincial government doesn't do that. We aren't elected to do that. School districts are elected to do that — to design programs based on the needs of the kids in their local communities. The reason school boards exist is to do that. If the member wants to suggest that they shouldn't have that responsibility, I suppose she might also support getting rid of school boards altogether. I don't support that view.

J. MacPhail: Madam Chair, I'm not quite sure why the minister is taking such an aggressive approach with me. I'm actually just trying to figure out what's going on in my own school district. It's my obligation, my responsibility that I take very seriously as a local MLA. I'm not sure why the minister is being so chippy with me, and I really ask her to stop, please. These are legitimate questions I'm asking.

One of the things I know parents in my community thought was that the concept of protecting funding for education meant that at least things wouldn't get worse. It's a pretty basic concept. The word "protect" does mean "not worse." "Protect" means whatever you've got now is protected. I expect some parents even thought maybe things would get better, but fair enough. Let's just take the word "protect," because these are the discussions my parents are having right now.

All I'm asking the minister is: in terms of the Vancouver school board, how does the minister rationalize the concept of protection of education funding with impending cuts that the Vancouver school board has said, quite dramatically, they'll have to make? Now, mind you, that's before today's meeting with the deputy minister. That's why I was curious to ask whether the…. I understand the change in government — that school boards are on their own in terms of how they manage the lump sum payment. I understand that. But in terms of the parents, they interpreted "protection" as at least the status quo. What work is the staff or the minister doing to jibe the definition of protection as it means for parents and her school funding?

Hon. C. Clark: First, my apologies to the member if I've upset her. I certainly apologize for doing that.

We said before the election that we would protect education funding, and we've done that. We've done that in this ministry, and we've done that in the Advanced Education ministry. And we've done that…. Actually, no, we haven't just protected funding in the Health ministry; we've added over a billion dollars to funding in the Health ministry. That was the commitment we made. We have kept that commitment.

J. MacPhail: Yes, I understand that. I understand the minister is saying that, but at the same time, the government's own actions added increased pressures to the costs of school boards by a salary increase. I assume the minister and her government understood that protection takes on a different meaning when they impose costs on school boards. Parents just assume that

protection means protect, not get worse. Given the minister's view that there's been some doom and gloom in the past that turned out not to be accurate, maybe the discussions with the Vancouver school board involved showing the board how this government's protection of funding isn't leading to program cuts. That's what I'm asking, because I need that information to take back to my constituents.

Hon. C. Clark: We said during the election that we would protect education funding. We have done that, despite the fact that there are fewer students to educate across this province this year or, we're predicting, next year than there were this year. We have kept that commitment, which we made during the election, in this ministry and in the Advanced Education ministry. There is no question about that.

I have said all along that I know there will be tough choices for school districts to make. Absolutely. I understand that. We are working with them, to the extent we can, to help them through it. I am confident that with the tools we have given them, they will be able to manage their budgets this year.

J. MacPhail: It's my recollection that salaries and benefits for employees in the school board constituted about 90 percent of education costs for a district. Is that still the figure?

J. MacPhail: So we have a situation where on January 26 or 27 of 2002…. My apologies, I need one more question. Of that 90 percent, what portion is teachers' salaries?

Hon. C. Clark: It very much depends on the district. It's dangerous to give you even a ballpark on that. I can try and get the numbers from the Vancouver school district for the member, if she'd like, or she can try and get them from Vancouver so she could have that specifically herself, if she'd like.

Hon. C. Clark: Here's some information I can provide that I hope is helpful: 58 percent of the employees, on average, in a school district are teachers.

J. MacPhail: That helps. I would assume that teachers are higher paid than support workers. It's certainly greater than half and probably approaching 70 percent of salary costs, just given that the average salary of a teacher is higher than that of a support worker. Let's round it off at 65 percent.

Here we have, on January 26 or 27 of this year, six weeks ago, the government imposing a cumulative 7.5 percent increase in costs on about 60 percent of the budget. Yet the government still said — and the minister now says — they're protecting education funding. I would think parents and educators themselves would think that belies the minister's assertion that she's protected education funding, when the government itself has imposed a cumulative 7.5 percent…. Sorry, it's annualized at the end of the collective agreement. It's an annualized cost of 7.5 percent lift on 60 percent of their budgets over which school boards have no flexibility, other than layoff. That's why I'm asking the minister to help parents figure out how that's protecting education funding.

Maybe it's this. Maybe the minister is saying: "Yes, we protected education funding, but that doesn't have anything to do with protecting education." Is that it?

Hon. C. Clark: The Education budget is the same this year as it was last, despite the fact that we have been through a profound restructuring of government. There have been ministries that have seen a 44 percent cut as a result of the desperate, urgent need to try and get our finances under control in British Columbia. We protected that budget in an era where enrolment is declining. Now, that means there are fewer kids to educate provincewide, even though the budget is the same. I think that speaks to the government's commitment to putting students first, to making sure children have access to a great education system.

Every other jurisdiction that has undertaken this kind of restructuring has done it right across the board. They've taken 5, 10 or even 20 percent right across the board, and that includes health care and education. We made some very, very tough choices in other ministries in order to protect health care and education funding. We've done that.

J. MacPhail: So there's a declining enrolment of 0.3 percent, but the minister's own actions have imposed a real increase cost on school boards of about 5 percent at the end of the three-year budget. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, the 0.3 percent decrease is for this year only. It's dangerous indeed to start predicting those increases or decreases two and three years out.

J. MacPhail: Yes, I understand that. I was actually giving the minister the benefit of the doubt. This year, by saying that enrolment is declining by 0.3 percent…. There's more than a 2.5 percent cost increase occurring this year. It's a 5 percent cost increase. It's year 1 and year 2 of the collective agreement. Then, by the end of the three-year collective agreement, as I interpret it, 7.5 percent lift on about 70 percent of a fixed budget — the teachers' salary budget — is about 4.9 or 5 percent increased expenditures. If you say that enrolment is declining….

We haven't even got to the other expenditures of the school board. It seems to me that by the minister's own actions, knowing that enrolment was declining by 0.3 percent, imposing a collective agreement on school boards, the minister knew full well there was a huge difference between protecting education funding and protecting education. Unfortunately, I'm not sure parents accept the minister's concept that protecting education funding, even when it means cuts to education, is what they were expecting from this government. That's my point.

In fact, school boards themselves…. I don't know these people, so I don't know. I'm quoting them because they were in the paper. This is October 12, 2001. The reason why I say this is significant is because it does say that the minister herself, when she stood up after the imposition of the collective agreement and said school boards knew about that, was correct. The minister was correct when she quite rightly said: "This should not come as any surprise to school boards." That's admirable.

But on October 12, 2001, this is what school boards were saying, if indeed the minister's assertion that school boards were going to have to pick up years 2 and 3 of the funding…. Ellen Slanina, chairwoman of the Saanich district school board, said that major cuts would mean a dismantling of the school system. "I think it would mean saying goodbye to the school system as we know it," Slanina said. "I was not elected to oversee the dismantling of the school system." I'll read the opening paragraph. It says: "Victoria-area school boards are alarmed that any teachers' pay increase beyond the first year will come out of existing funding, which could mean deep cuts to other areas." That was October 12, 2001.

It's clear the school boards knew then that the minister was only going to pay for the first year. By the same token, the minister herself was warned by the very school boards she works with that that was going to be an issue of cuts. Yet the minister still went ahead and said, "We've protected education funding," as if the public would understand that to mean they've protected education. That's my view of what's happened with this government.

All I'm trying to do is match the minister's, I'd say, skating about that protecting education funding is protecting education. My view is that we now see they're two separate things. Can the minister dissuade me of that?

Hon. C. Clark: I have the sense the member is rapidly running out of questions based on the budget, but I'd be delighted to answer that question nonetheless.

The government, as I said, has protected education funding. We've done that in an era of declining enrolment. I have always said, and I've said it all along, that I know school districts will have new pressures and will have tough decisions to make. That's why we've given them some tools to make those decisions — tools they asked for. We've given them the ability to decide how they will staff their schools. We've given them the ability to decide how they will organize those schools, and we've given them the ability to decide how they will allocate their budgets internally, by taking off all the strings and conditions we used to attach — they have told me this — that would not allow them to stretch a dollar further, to spend a little smarter or to find efficiencies.

J. MacPhail: I'm sorry to upset the minister, but I've got lots more questions. I hope she's up for it.

Well, then here's another school board that has a view on what the minister is saying, the greater Victoria school board. Elaine Leonard said: "Having at least the first year of the contract coming from outside the current budget is good news…because trustees won't be trying to find that money midway through the year. Having said that, any kind of a cut would be devastating. We're cut to the bone right now." That was in October 2001.

My own school board chair is saying exactly the same thing — unless the staff can update me after the meeting today. My own school board chair, Ms. Buchanan, and the school trustees are saying exactly the same thing — that no matter how many ways this government wants to say they protected education funding, it's not protecting education. It doesn't do justice to the government to fail to admit that.

Now in Kamloops–North Thompson, school trustees have been told by their secretary-treasurer — his name is Jim Sheldon — that they'll have to face further cuts, up to about $5 million. That's very, very recent. That's as a result of the budgets the minister rolled out in recent days. Perhaps we could go over whether the ministry staff will be meeting with Kamloops-Thompson school trustees to tell them how it's not a $5 million cut.

Hon. C. Clark: The Kamloops school district has not requested a meeting with the ministry. Of course, we'd be happy to oblige if and when they do.

J. MacPhail: How does a school board of trustees ask for a meeting? I know there used to be a team of ministry employees that would go in and assist school boards. Is that team still in existence?

Hon. C. Clark: Yes, that certainly still exists if a school district requests it.

Hon. C. Clark: I think the member is asking specifically about the efficiency advisory teams. We haven't had any recent requests from districts.

J. MacPhail: Believe you me, as a result of last week, the memory is plummeting — my birthday.

I thought there used to be a team that would go in and help school boards around a looming deficit. That's the team I'm talking about — whether there's been any requests. I understand it's very early, but school boards facing a deficit situation asking for help….

Hon. C. Clark: I think the member is referring to the efficiency advisory teams. As I said, there has been no recent request.

J. MacPhail: One of the areas I understand the minister clarified yesterday was that the increase in MSP premiums would be covered by the provincial government. I assume that's being added to the base funding. Is that correct?

J. MacPhail: In discussions today with the Vancouver school board, what was that figure the ministry staff said would be added to the base for the Vancouver school board?

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, it was added in the base. It's there in their budget. I do not have the number for Vancouver specifically for their MSP.

J. MacPhail: Let's just work it through. The '01-02 budget was $364 million, and $367.1 is the '02-03 budget. I gather that's to cover off a reduction in enrolment, the $5.6 million for the first year of the collective agreement and what's added on top of that for MSP. Are the increased MSP premiums to come out of that?

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, that money is in the base, so it's in that number.

J. MacPhail: The Vancouver school board gets an extra $3.1 million to cover off the salary increase and the MSP premiums. Is that correct? In other words, is the Vancouver school board getting $3.1 million to cover off all cost pressures that have arisen in the last — let's take a wild number — six weeks?

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, we have protected education funding. That does not mean a big increase in education funding. We have protected it in a very, very difficult economic time.

The member has the numbers for Vancouver correct. It is $367.1 million this year. That's our estimate based on enrolment for next year.

J. MacPhail: All right. Let's go through this, then. We now know that what the school board has to pay as a result of pressures put on it by this government — cost pressures brought not by anybody else except this government — is $5.6 million. That's just for the Vancouver school board for year 1 of the collective agreement, which then rolls through each and every year. Then we have the 50 percent increases in MSP premiums for the school board, a figure which I would ask the minister to provide me. I would expect that's in the millions. I would like a figure on that. I'm going to go through my questions to figure out the other cost pressures. The next one I want to move to is teachers' increments. As I'm waiting, I'm sure the minister will be able to find the MSP premium increase for the Vancouver school board.

As I understand it, school districts have, on average, a salary grid of about 12 years. It takes 12 years to reach the top level. Each year they teach, the teachers get an automatic increment in salary. If they receive more education, then they also go to a higher-paid salary grid. When teachers get their master's degree, they get to jump up a few steps on the grid.

I was just advised that the Vancouver school board has said that the increased premium costs are $1.1 million annually, so I'm going to add that $1.1 million. It's $5.6 million for salary increases and $1.1 million for MSP premium increases. We're up to $6.7 million annually.

Anyway, I'm on to increments now. In the past each district has incurred greater costs if there are people moving up the salary grid, even if there's no negotiated increased costs for salary. In the past the ministry has provided a special grant for increments. Now, I know that's interfering — old Victoria interfering, saying: "Gosh, school board, you've got increased costs for salary grids. We're going to give you the money for it." I guess it's that kind of interference the minister's talking about that's inappropriate. Instead, as I understand it, this year there's no guarantee for a grant for increased costs due to pressures for salary grid increments. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Clark: As I've already said in estimates, no, we aren't covering grid increases. We expect school districts will balance off the number of people who are retiring with new, less expensive teachers coming in at the bottom end. The Vancouver school district hasn't made any allowance for that assumption in its budget numbers. That would be a realistic assumption to make, but they haven't made that assumption in the numbers the member's working from.

J. MacPhail: I understand the grid pressures for the Vancouver school board is another $2.4 million, unless the minister has some information about massive layoffs that I don't know about.

Hon. C. Clark: I don't employ the teachers at the Vancouver school board, so I don't hire and fire them. The Vancouver school board does that. I was simply pointing out that every year school districts have peo-

ple retiring who are at the top end of the grid and replace them with people who are less expensive because they're at the bottom end of the grid. The school district hasn't made any recognition of that in its budget numbers. If it had, I would suggest that the numbers they would have worked into their budget would have been more realistic.

J. MacPhail: Sorry, I have a number of $2.4 million that the Vancouver school board is estimating they will have to make up themselves for grid increments that were normally — in the past, I should say — covered off by a grant that is no longer being provided. The school board is well aware of how to calculate that with the retirement of senior teachers and the hiring of new teachers. I got that information from the Vancouver school board.

Hon. C. Clark: As I said…. Actually, maybe I didn't say this. In the meeting today that staff had with staff from the school district, I think they identified that as one of the areas where we need to do some more work. Certainly, they will be, I understand, talking and working through that together over the coming weeks.

The Chair: I know it's been a long day, but I wouldn't mind if you all would ask your questions and answers through the Chair, please.

J. MacPhail: Perhaps the minister or her staff could tell me what the discrepancy is. Let's use this as an example of the cooperation between Victoria and the school board in the new era of how this problem will be worked out.

Hon. C. Clark: We need to make sure the Vancouver school district numbers do accurately reflect what we expect will happen in any given year. Older teachers will retire. Older teachers are certainly at the top of the grid, usually. They're more expensive. They'll be replaced by younger teachers who are less expensive. There is some question as to whether the Vancouver school district made any reflection of that reality in their numbers.

J. MacPhail: Okay. That would surprise me. In the past the school boards have actually had to do that in order to get the grant. Then they got the grant for that. It would surprise me if the Vancouver school board wasn't familiar with how to do that.

Let me ask this of the minister, just as an example of how we work out those problems: what's the time frame for working that out? Because $2.4 million is a substantial number that needs to be worked out before the school boards actually implement a cut of $2.4 million, could I have some time lines on how this is going to be resolved?

Hon. C. Clark: The rules around how school boards design their budgets haven't changed from previous years, in the large sense of how government interrelates with school districts. They are still in charge of drawing up their budgets. The provincial government gives them an allocation, but they draw up the budget.

We are not in a position — and as I said, I think it would be quite out of order for the provincial government to suggest that we are going to — to go in and draw their budget up for them. We are always continuing to have discussions with school districts. We will continue to talk to the Vancouver school district should they choose to rely on us for advice. Should they not choose to rely on us for advice, that will certainly be their decision to make.

J. MacPhail: I'm asking the question as an MLA. Okay, I have a kid in a school too. How will parents know when this issue…? Not the school board. I understand the minister's saying she's not going to go in and do the school board budget.

What happens now, certainly in my district, is that school boards have a very, very public process for public input into the budget. Just so the minister knows — I know the minister isn't in Vancouver, but I'm sure her school district is the same — what happens in Vancouver is that the school board determines how much money it has, and then it opens up those discussions about allocation of those funds to the public — to parents, teachers. Some kids even show up. We go through a very detailed, sometimes heart-wrenching process of budget allocation at the school board level.

I think it would be helpful — I don't think this is interference at all by the Ministry of Education — if the school board is getting something wrong in calculating the impact of the grid costs, for the ministry to say: "Whoa, that's wrong." You know what happens if the ministry doesn't do that? We at the local level go through the heart-wrenching, painful exercise of imposing cuts that may not be necessary. That's why I'm asking if maybe we could use this as an example, if the school board has got it wrong in terms of the grid costs, just to show the school board how they got it wrong. Then we can avoid that becoming the reality of a cut.

Hon. C. Clark: I'm advised that even previous governments didn't go through, line by line, every school district's budget to ensure that the numbers they'd put down were added up correctly. That isn't something this government is contemplating doing, and I don't think it's something previous governments have ever contemplated doing, simply because we don't have the infrastructure in the government to do that, and with good reason. School districts are empowered and responsible for making those decisions themselves. They aren't things the provincial government is in charge of doing. We don't have an infrastructure to do that, and really, given the fact that we should be respecting school boards' autonomy, nor should we.

I'm just looking at this example. I regret it and I disagree with it, but I accept the fact that the school boards understand that they've got $5.6 million for salaries this year and $1.1 million of MSP premiums this year in cost pressures. What I'm asking about now is the $2.4 million on salary grid pressures. If there is some discrepancy there…. I fully understand that the minister is saying, "School boards, you have flexibility to manage your own budgets," but why would the minister or her staff sit back and allow the school board to make a mistake on that calculation that could then translate, in the coming weeks, into a wrong-headed or inadvertent program cut?

I know the minister's main client here is parents. I'm actually not speaking as an MLA. Well, I am speaking as an MLA, but I've got my heart of a parent on here.

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, we sat down with the Vancouver school district today — or staff did, at the staff level — to compare our numbers with their numbers. Partly, I think they were seeking our advice about what was accurate and not. We have offered them our advice.

It has never been the practice of the Ministry of Education, this year or in previous years, to sit down with school districts and point a finger at them and say: "You're wrong about this, and you'd better fix it." That isn't the role of the Ministry of Education. It hasn't ever been, nor should it be. We don't contemplate sitting down with every school district and checking them line by line, because they are elected and empowered by law to do that.

J. MacPhail: That's not what I'm suggesting, by any stretch of the imagination. That's not what happened in the past either. It's like the efficiency advisory team. It wasn't in a punitive way. I used to make it clear in my estimates all the time that it wasn't punitive. It was as an assistance.

My apologies. I keep saying it's the deputy minister. Was it the deputy minister that met with Vancouver school board staff today? Who was it, so I'm naming them properly?

Hon. C. Clark: We had a member of our finance branch, and we had a member of our field liaison branch.

Hon. C. Clark: No. As I said, there hasn't been a request for an efficiency advisory team to go out to a school district in a while.

There are two ways I can interpret what the minister is telling me: first, it's a completely hands-off approach, even when the school board may inadvertently be misguided in terms of the calculation of the deficit they have to manage. In this particular case, I understood the minister to say that something further in the salary grid pressures…. The minister said that's one issue the school board and the staff need to do further work on. How I interpreted that was to say that the school board was overestimating the salary grid pressures. I don't think the ministry would hesitate to say…. If there's a problem that needs to be worked on, I can only assume it's the Ministry of Education saying: "No, no, no, school board, you don't have as big a problem as you anticipate here." Maybe it's that the ministry staff said: "No, no, no. My gosh, you've underestimated the problem here." Let's deal with that stuff. Is the ministry saying the problem that needs to be resolved is that they believe the ministry has overestimated the problem of the pressure from grid increases?

Hon. C. Clark: I'm advised by staff that at the meeting…. I'll put it this way. What I said was that we don't know if they have taken those things into account. We have advised them that they should take those things into account. I have every confidence in the Vancouver school board and in their staff. It is one of the best-equipped school boards in the province. I have every confidence that as they go through this budget process — and remember, as I think the member has confirmed, we are in very early days of the budget process — and as they continue to crunch their numbers, they will take those things into account.

J. MacPhail: The minister's comments on that make me hopeful, because of course time is of the essence. I think it will be later this month that the parents and teachers, the consumers of education, will be meeting with the school board in the public's input into budgets. I think any advice — just advice — the ministry staff can give to the Vancouver school board that would negate the need for program cuts, cuts to education, would be extremely helpful.

I might also offer the minister this as well. As I said earlier, the chair of the Vancouver school board has called a meeting of all of the Vancouver MLAs. She has said that she wants that meeting sooner rather than later. Any advice I can give at that time in terms of clarifying would be, I think, helpful to everybody, including the students and the parents who may be able to avoid cuts in education.

In the meantime, all I can do is continue to add the pressures on the Vancouver school board. We're now up to $9.1 million in terms of annual unfunded pressures on the Vancouver school board. Now I want to turn to the issue of other unfunded pressures. That's the issue of debt servicing. I know the minister started to explore this with the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant yesterday. There has been a huge change this year, as a result of the change in government, in how debt servicing is handled in the province, particularly how it affects school boards. The interest on capital projects — building, renovating or seismic upgrading a

school — has always been paid outside of the education pot. I'm sorry; not always, but since 1982. In the last 20 years, debt-servicing costs have always been outside of the education pot. This year it's added to school districts' own costs, which again, is cost pressure on school boards. How does the minister jibe that with the protection of education funding?

Hon. C. Clark: The member is incorrect. I'm advised that for the last ten years, debt service and amortization have been a subvote in the Ministry of Education budget.

J. MacPhail: Okay, that's true. I thank Mr. Vincent for that. However, it was fully funded outside of the grant to school boards.

Hon. C. Clark: I should correct myself. The inclusion of amortization is more recent than ten years. Debt service inclusion is from the last ten years. The school districts are not paying for debt service and amortization. That is coming out of the Ministry of Education budget, outside of the amount we provide to school districts.

Hon. C. Clark: I don't want to be disrespectful, but I'm not exactly sure what quote the member is referring to from school districts. Perhaps if she could quote that for me, I could answer that question more accurately.

J. MacPhail: Let's just deal with the Vancouver school board then. Maybe I've got this wrong. Out of the '01-02 budget of $364 million, did the Vancouver school board have to pay debt-servicing costs?

J. MacPhail: What the minister is saying now is that they don't have to pay debt-servicing costs out of that set $367.1 million. They've now got $367.1 million that compares to the $364 million, but debt servicing is now not the responsibility of the school board. I had that wrong?

Hon. C. Clark: If the member is referring to debt service for capital, as I have said a couple of times, it is not the responsibility of school boards.

J. MacPhail: My apologies. I just want to confirm then. I'll just give you the quote. This is from the School Trustees Association. It's the February 20, 2002, document. It says that debt servicing is now the responsibility of the school boards in the allocation of school funds. Did they get that wrong? I'm just working from their documents. The note here says that the BCSTA's understanding is that these amounts were previously reported within the Ministry of Finance. That's the School Trustees Association itself. I can actually hand this document over if I can have it back, because I need to work with it. Do you want to see this? I need it back; that's all.

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, the debt service costs are paid for out of the ministry budget, as they have been for the last ten years. That is not a responsibility of school boards.

J. MacPhail: Did the Vancouver school board bring this up with the staff today? Was that clarified? They would be working from the school trustees' advice.

Hon. C. Clark: The people who met with the Vancouver school board are not here to report on exact details of their conversation. As I understand it, the school board understands the situation as I've explained it tonight.

J. MacPhail: That's great news that the school trustees are wrong in assuming they would have to absorb debt-servicing costs. I'd be happy to clarify that with my school board as well.

I want to go through some other budget decreases here that the ministry has also, in terms of the Vancouver school board, actually calculated. I see that the ministry is predicting an enrolment increase of 179 for the Vancouver school board. Is that the prediction?

J. MacPhail: That'll be the first time there'll be an enrolment increase in the Vancouver school board. I'm just wondering, in the discussions, where that's coming from. It's good news.

Hon. C. Clark: The numbers we arrive at for our predictions are based on B.C. Stats.

J. MacPhail: Here's why I'm concerned about it. It'll just be something I'll be keeping a watching brief on. Let me ask you this: when does the recalculation of students actually enrolled take place now under this government?

Hon. C. Clark: September 30. On that point, I want to add this. This is, I think, going to be an exciting announcement. We are adding in a second count during the year. This is something we're contemplating doing in February. The reason it's an exciting initiative is because, particularly for first nations students, it's important we make sure they stay in school throughout the year and we provide incentives for school districts to do everything they can to keep those kids in the classroom. A second count is something we're contemplating being able to do this year. We hope we'll be able to do it the following year, as well, and certainly on into the future. At the moment, the next count is going to be September 30.

J. MacPhail: It sounds like great news. Can the minister just elaborate how doing two counts helps first nations students?

Hon. C. Clark: Often first nations students will start school in September and not stay on through. The in-

centive for school districts for them to stay on through is that they'll get to keep the money for those students if they stay and are still there for the second count. We want to build in incentives for school districts to keep first nations students in class. That's part of our many-pronged plan to try to help improve what are really appalling graduation rates for first nations students.

I think we have a responsibility to do that as a government. We shouldn't just be looking at the success of the students who do best. We should certainly be trying to improve success for kids who are vulnerable and certainly have other challenges when they enter school.

J. MacPhail: Well, I have very strongly held views, and I couldn't agree with the minister more on that goal, but I will disagree on how you achieve that goal. Cutting funding for inner-city schools isn't the way to go on that. Inner-city school funding is targeted directly. In my riding and in the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant's riding, where the majority of inner-city school funding goes, it's targeted directly towards first nations kids.

Has that been tried before — a recalc done twice? And with what success in terms of the goal the minister's articulating?

Hon. C. Clark: It's never been tried before in B.C. It's been tried in other jurisdictions, and they report it as a success.

J. MacPhail: Yes. I'm asking for the details of where and what the level of success was.

Hon. C. Clark: Ontario's done it for years. As I said, they have reported success. I suppose we could quibble about the level of success. It certainly means, though, that they have built-in incentives for school districts to try and keep kids in school for longer periods of time. That's certainly what we're aiming for.

J. MacPhail: Good. The reason why I'm curious about an enrolment increase of 179 for the Vancouver school board is because that would fly in the face of most recent experience. What I'll be watching is this: by increasing the enrolment initially, the funding, the budget the ministry gets, is inflated by that number of students — 179 by $5,000-odd. If it doesn't come to fruition, then the recalc takes that money away. It's pretty significant being funded for 179 students on a prediction that is new. It's one area I will be keeping a watching brief on to see whether indeed the 179 students have actually come to fruition, because that's a fairly liberal assessment when normally the reverse occurs. You take a conservative approach, and then the recalc adds money.

What are the statistical changes that gave rise to that? It's a substantial amount of money.

Hon. C. Clark: In '01-02 the enrolment increase in actuals was 0.8, and this year we're predicting lower than that, which is 0.3. The year before it was zero; the year before that it was down 0.7; the year before that it was down 0.6; the year before that it was up 1.2. In '96-97 it was up 0.7; in '95-96 it was up 2.6; in '94-95 it was up 3.5; in '93-94 it was up 1.6; and in '92-93 it was up 0.5.

J. MacPhail: As I say, I'll just be keeping a watching brief on that, because even the latest census statistics would belie that fact.

In terms of having two recalcs, then, let's say the Vancouver school board has a recalc that is downward. I'm just having a little trouble understanding how you do it twice. Is that split? Like, in February there's a recalc, and then in September there's another recalc? Recalculation. I'm sorry — I'm using jargon here.

Hon. C. Clark: Yes, we use the same method to do it in February that we do in September.

J. MacPhail: I'm going to move to something that would help clarify some stuff for me, if I may. There was a meeting on Friday amongst the secretary-treasurers of the province and the deputy minister. The budgets were discussed. I'm wondering if the minister could give me a flavour of what was discussed at that meeting in terms of possible solutions to potential budget cuts.

Hon. C. Clark: The staff and my deputy went through the budget-making process with them. They went through the new funding formula with them. The previous week we'd met with school board chairs and superintendents. We wanted to clarify any questions they had. We wanted to make sure they understood how the process worked. I'm advised that it was a very, very productive meeting and in many ways an historic meeting.

The Ministry of Education hasn't had much regular contact in the past with school trustees, school board chairs and superintendents. We're making an enormous effort to try and do that, recognizing that they're full partners, not lackeys to be ordered around by the ministry. It's a change of attitude. The corporate culture in the ministry is that we are here to help, here to advise, and we recognize and trust their right to make decisions.

J. MacPhail: What I heard was that the deputy said to the secretary-treasurers that if they couldn't balance the budgets, the ministry would. I wonder whether that's accurate or not, because that flies in the face of what the minister has said in terms of a hands-off approach.

Hon. C. Clark: The law has not changed on balanced budgets from school districts this year from previous years. It's the same. School districts are required to balance their budgets, and of course we expect they will.

J. MacPhail: That's not what the deputy minister said. The deputy minister said if the school boards

can't balance their budgets, the ministry will. What the law says is that the school boards have to balance their budgets, and if they don't, action can be taken. What I heard out of the meeting was that secretary-treasurers immediately leapt to the conclusion that this would be action taken against school board trustees.

Hon. C. Clark: The deputy told school secretary-treasurers we would be delighted to help them balance their budgets. That's part of the process we've been working with. We've been working with school districts, sitting down with the Vancouver school board, talking to them, offering advice when they ask. Certainly, though, the law states that school districts must balance their budgets, and we expect them to do that.

J. MacPhail: Well, Madam Chair, I've been spending two hours where the minister has stood up question after question and said: "That's not our job. We're not in the business of micromanaging and telling school boards how to balance their budgets." As I asked it in a positive way by saying, "What assistance can the minister give to school boards?" the minister has said: "That's not our job." Now I hear that the deputy has gone in and said: "If the school boards don't balance it, the ministry will." All I'm asking is: how does that jibe with what the minister has been saying for the last two hours here? What did the deputy mean that's different than what the minister has said?

Hon. C. Clark: Exactly what I have been saying for the last two hours. School districts, when they need assistance, can come to the ministry and ask for that assistance. We are happy to sit down with them and offer them advice about budgeting. We are happy to sit down with them and offer them advice about some of the assumptions they make in their budgets. Ultimately those decisions are up to them. What the deputy told school secretary-treasurers was that we would be happy to do exactly what we have been doing with the Vancouver school board and with other school boards who've asked for our assistance.

J. MacPhail: Well, what happens if the school board can't balance their budget because of funding cuts and increased pressures? What happens then?

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, hon. Chair, the rules haven't changed this year from last year and from years previous. School districts are required to balance their budgets by law, and we expect them to meet their obligation.

J. MacPhail: Well, I saved this till second-to-last because I wondered whether there was…. I mean, I actually interpreted this initially as a positive initiative, and now I'm not so sure, because the minister has gone along saying something entirely different than what the deputy minister said. Question after question, the minister has said: "It's a hands-off approach." Then we hear there's a non-public meeting, fair enough, between secretary-treasurers and the deputy minister, where some secretary-treasurers walked away worried about the consequences of the ministry balancing their budget.

I'll tell you where the discussion went. The discussion went that it's the law. If school boards can't balance their budgets, then school board trustees can be fired. Was that a wrong assumption for the secretary-treasurers to conclude as a result of the deputy minister's statement?

Hon. C. Clark: The member is correct about the legal framework we work in. It hasn't changed this year from previous years. There's no question about that. The deputy gave the secretary-treasurers the same message I am giving the member tonight. That is that school districts are required to balance their budget under the law. We expect them to meet that obligation. We are here to help them if they need advice, and they seek that advice from us. That is exactly what we have been doing with school districts over the last week or so, as I have been saying for the last couple of hours tonight.

J. MacPhail: No, the situation's different this year — absolutely different. The school boards' funding has been frozen — the minister likes to say it's protected, so we'll say it's been protected, to use her own words — at the '01-02 level, but the ministry, the government, has imposed costs on the school boards. They're not costs that allow for flexibility, unless the minister is talking about program cuts.

In the Vancouver school board the pressures are over $9 million in one year on three items the school board has no control over, other than cutting services. A school board is left with the choice now to either cut services, cut programs and balance its budget or go to the ministry and say: "Gee, through no action of our own, we can't balance our budget." Then we have the deputy saying: "If you can't balance your budget, school board, we'll balance it for you."

Let me ask this, then: is this back to the situation where, when the minister says, "We've protected education funding," it really means the ministry will ask the school boards to cut programs in order to balance their budgets?

Hon. C. Clark: School boards are empowered to make decisions about local programs. We believe in that right, that obligation they have under the law, and we intend to respect that. The deputy told secretary-treasurers exactly what I have been telling the member all night. That is that we would be pleased to offer advice and assistance to them in their budgeting, particularly given that we are using a new funding formula. There are many new changes for them this year; however, they are required under the law to balance their budget. That law hasn't changed this year over last, and we expect them to meet that obligation.

J. MacPhail: Funding increased year over year for the past years. In fact, if school boards were indeed

having trouble…. Kamloops and North Vancouver school boards had some interim funding to assist in terms of that. Is that available to the school boards now?

Hon. C. Clark: We have just delivered the allocations to school districts. School districts are in the very early stages of working through their budgets. We will continue to do that with them. The member will note, as well, that we've worked some significant buffer grants into the funding formula. For Vancouver that's a fairly large amount. I think that speaks to our commitment to make sure school districts have as much ability as possible to manage what is, I know, a lot of change in one year.

J. MacPhail: Well, let me make a prediction. I have to tell you, Madam Chair, that so far, my predictions have been 100 percent correct on actions that could arise out of this government's changes. I predict there will be program cuts as a result of this minister claiming she protects education funding. There is a vast difference between this minister saying she's protecting education funding and protecting education. I predict there will be program cuts, not only in my school district but in the vast majority of school districts across this province. I predict the deputy's words will come true. The ministry will have to balance the budgets because school boards won't be able, in good conscience, to balance their budgets, because they know the harm it'll do to students. I predict that, but we'll see. We'll see whether that's the case.

I'm wondering. Now that the staff have had a chance to see this BCSTA leaflet here, where there's quite an extensive comment about how capital financing mechanisms will change, and they highlight this, saying…. They're quoting from the budget.

This is what I was basing my comments to the minister on, about how there's a new requirement for school boards to absorb debt-servicing costs.

Can the minister and staff explain so that I can explain — I'm meeting with the school trustees in April — where their assumption that this is now a new cost pressure on them is wrong?

Hon. C. Clark: I should note for the Legislature that this document is dated February 20. It's the day after the budget was released. It was, I think, the product of the lockup before the budget. The statement in here, as I have said to the member twice, I think, is inaccurate. The capital expenditures for debt and amortization will be carried in the ministry budget as they have been for many years. That is not a cost that will be borne by school districts.

J. MacPhail: Look, I'm having a great deal of difficulty with this, I admit. Walk me through it, please. What am I getting wrong here? Is it that the debt-servicing and amortization costs…? The $364 million for the Vancouver school board in '01-02 — that included funding for debt amortization and debt-servicing costs, and it's been ever thus.

J. MacPhail: What does this statement mean, then? Just help me with this statement out of the budget. What's changed this year? It says it's starting this year. What's changed? On the $364 million just for my school board, what's changed? What's starting this year?

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, the statement in the press release the member is quoting is incorrect.

J. MacPhail: It's out of the budget documents. The budget documents are wrong?

Hon. C. Clark: If she refers to her budget documents, she'll see there is a separate subvote for debt service amortization than there is for the disbursement of money to public schools.

J. MacPhail: I'm wondering whether, then, the ministry is planning to correct this with the school trustees, because as recently as yesterday this document was a live document.

Hon. C. Clark: I am fairly certain the B.C. school trustees understand this statement is incorrect. However, if it will give the member some comfort, certainly staff will contact their staff and make sure they understand that — although the document the member is referring to is almost a month old, which in politics, I think, does not a live document make.

J. MacPhail: Regardless of the age of the document, it's the most current information I was able to obtain from the school trustees. I take the minister at her word that the deputy or staff will clarify that this isn't an added pressure out of their operating grants. It's quite clear here. It says "their operating spending targets." I assume meant it was the grants that go from Victoria to the school boards. Call me crazy, but I can understand their confusion. A clarifying document, of which I would appreciate a copy, would sure help. It will help me with parents who are relying on this information as well.

I've got one area that we could probably explore just before…. I'm not sure. What hour do we rise?

The Chair: We should be through any minute now so that we can report back. If you've got one more question, then we can continue following this evening.

I'll move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Madam Chair.