Hansard -- Wednesday, April 9, 2003 p.m. -- Vol. 14, No. 5 (HTML)

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		6147

Statements (Standing Order 25b)		6147
	Seal hunt on B.C. coast B. Belsey Cancer B. Locke Battle of Vimy Ridge B. Kerr

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

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

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

J. Weisbeck: Somewhere up there in the very busy gallery are a couple of members from Kelowna, Alison McNeill and Leslie Martin. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Bray: Up in the members' gallery are two very special people joining us here from Vancouver. Certainly, they are the group most responsible for me being here in this House and for anything else. I'd ask the House to please welcome my mother and father, Marshall Bray, QC, and Evelyn Bray, to the House.

R. Hawes: In the House today we have Nancy Wells, who is superintendent of school district 75 in Mission, one of the finest administrators that we have in this province. With her is Dianne Parkinson, principal of Riverside Trades, Training and Technology Centre in Mission, which is one of the more innovative creations of any of the school districts in this province. Could the House please make both of them welcome.

P. Wong: I'm pleased to introduce a group of 86 students from Sir Charles Tupper Secondary School in my riding. This school is designated as an inner-city school and serves 1,000 students. For a large percentage of the student population, English is a second language. Tupper has always sent the largest group of social science students to visit the Legislature, totalling 160 students every year.

The Fraser Institute's recent report card, unfortunately, gave the school a failing grade. Last month I went to the school and met with the principal, teachers and many students. I certainly agreed with what Principal Palmer said: "Tupper is a positive working and learning environment. Students are polite and respectful, and they have one of the best arts and drama programs in the Vancouver area."

In order to keep the students motivated, I'm pleased to inform the House that under the better community partnership outreach network that has recently been established by volunteers in my riding, the Vancouver Cathay Lions Club has agreed to offer a $500 scholarship to this school. This is the third scholarship that I have personally garnered for this school under this network program. Would the House please give all the students, teacher Mr. David Dougall, along with Mr. Stan Hack, Mr. Dave Trask, Ms. Anne Young and Ms. Cornelia Sussman, a very warm welcome.

B. Belsey: I rise today to talk about a first nations seal hunt on B.C.'s coast. Last week I rose in the House and asked why the federal government considered it safe to explore for oil and gas off the east coast but not off the west coast. Today I rise to ask: why does the federal government allow a seal hunt on the east coast but bans a hunt on the west coast?

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

Chief Roy Jones Jr. of Haida Gwaii, since an earlier meeting with myself and the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, has been working diligently to promote a sustainable commercial industry that uses every part of the harvested seal. From the nose to the flippers, Chief Jones has sought out markets. From clothing to human consumption to medicines, the entire harvested seal can be marketed.

In Mr. Jones's own words: "The controversies surrounding a seal hunt are so complex that narrow-mindedness will have to be overcome by many extreme environmentalists. These people, I fear, will be the ones that will never understand the concept of a seal hunt, and are people who may be most dangerous to myself and anyone involved in a seal hunt."

Mr. Speaker, I join Chief Jones in hoping that we can develop a harvest based on science and not on rhetoric.

B. Locke: On December 17, 1999, my cell phone rang. It was my doctor telling me my test results came back positive. I had cancer, and he had scheduled my surgery for the 28th, less than two weeks away. I spent four days in hospital and six months recuperating. The word "cancer" is frightening and for many people, including myself, life-changing. At first, I felt very alone, but soon learned that I was anything but.

Every year over 17,000 people in B.C. are diagnosed, and approximately 8,300 deaths occur. Cancer is now the second leading cause of death in Canada. While one-third of us will be diagnosed with the disease in our lifetime, thanks to the advancement in prevention and treatment more than half of us will survive.

The month of April is Canadian Cancer Society's annual campaign. During this month, they raise funds

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

B. Kerr: The World War I battle of Vimy Ridge is considered to be one of the most significant points in Canadian military history. More than 100,000 troops from coast to coast, with brigades from every region of Canada, fought at Vimy under a unified Canadian command. The victory of Vimy Ridge was a turning point in the war for the Allies and an important moment in the building of the Canadian nation.

As I look around this House I see a well-lit, comfortable room that is warm and safe. Eighty-six years ago it was a very different story. Men did not spend four years in a building such as this. They spent four years in the trenches. In the trenches, our grandfathers and great-grandfathers lived lives of filth and misery. Barbed wire channelled soldiers into virtual killing grounds where machine guns would hack them to pieces. Men were chopped up by bullets, shredded by exploding shells, suffocated by gas, incinerated by flame throwers and smothered by caved-in trenches. Horror had become commonplace, slaughter had become mundane, and death was sometimes callously regarded as normal wastage. This was the reality of war and something we should never forget.

Last Sunday the West Shore Royal Canadian Legion commemorated the battle of Vimy Ridge with a candlelight ceremony at the West Shore Vimy memorial, the only Vimy memorial outside of France. There they dedicated maple leaf plaques to honour the veterans who sacrificed so much, so that we could be here today.

This April 3 the Parliament of Canada declared April 9 to officially be Vimy Ridge Day. On this day and on every subsequent April 9, flags on the Peace Tower in Ottawa will fly at half-staff to commemorate those who lost their lives in this pivotal battle of the First World War. On this day we, too, should take time in our deliberations to remember the great sacrifices that were made by those who came before us so that we could debate freely all the issues that are important to us today. We should remember, too, that pivotal day in Canadian history.

J. MacPhail: Just the other night in this chamber, the Minister of Management Services admitted that the Premier's pet portal project — pet portal pratfall — has so far proved to be a dismal failure — a $7.1 million failure. But the news gets worse. Now it appears the minister saddled with this boondoggle is going to have to come up with an additional $12 million to make the Premier's portal promise a reality.

Will the minister stand today and assure this House that he will table the business plan for the Premier's portal project, including an accounting of the $7.1 million spent so far, before one more dime is thrown into this digital dumpster?

Hon. S. Santori: As I indicated to the member the other night in estimates, this is a three-year project. The total cost over the three years is $18 million, and we will come in on budget and deliver services to the people of this province.

J. MacPhail: Only this government would claim to be 400 percent over budget and still claim they're coming in on budget. Actually, this government has set a new record for being 400 percent over budget on any project. At least we know that the $6 million that the Premier is giving to his spin machine across the street is being well spent. Only they could label a black hole a portal.

Last year the Premier spent only $2.5 million of his own budget on the portal pratfall. Where did he get the rest of the money? Well, the Premier sucked up $3.5 million last year from every other ministry in government — money that should have gone to make children safe from earthquakes at South Park Elementary and Van Tech. Instead it went to the Premier's portal passion.

Can the Minister of Management Services tell us today how much money is going to be shovelled into this portal pit instead of being spent on making schools safe? He says $18 million. It's already 400 percent over budget.

Hon. S. Santori: I am totally amazed that the member has the audacity to stand up in this House and talk to us about meeting budgets. I think that member's record speaks for itself. If I may share with you, Mr. Speaker, what e-government means to that member. It means endless overruns and excessive spending, and it means easy come, easy go.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplementary question.

J. MacPhail: …is embarrassed by a 400 percent overrun, and that doesn't even mean it's going to work

after the 400 percent overrun — massive cost overruns and zip, zip-a-dee-do-dah to show for it.

Thousands of British Columbians have been added to the surgery wait-lists since this government took over. They know how that $7 million could have been better spent.

Again, can the minister responsible for ensuring that the Premier gets his bonus — and that's all he's doing here — assure all those on the surgical wait-lists that not one day will be added to their pain and suffering just so the Premier's digital dream isn't dashed?

Hon. S. Santori: It's quite obvious that the member opposite is getting a…

Mr. Minister, we will continue when the Leader of the Opposition has come to order.

Hon. S. Santori: …real good reputation in terms of not getting her facts straight. I would suggest she's the one who's been going on a fishing trip lately, and not someone else. As I indicated before, and I will continue to say to the member and to this House, the project is for $18 million over three years. We will be on budget.

B. Locke: My question is to the Minister of State for Mental Health. Methadone is recognized as an effective treatment for heroin addicts looking to kick their addiction. However, in my community of Surrey there is a concern that methadone is being sold illegally on the street and contributing to the drug problem. Can the minister tell my constituents who has the responsibility to enforce the rules with regard to the sale of methadone and to ensure that pharmacies are not contributing to the street drug problem?

Hon. G. Cheema: Last Friday our deputy minister met with the Surrey council to address this controversial methadone bylaw. She was joined by others, including representatives from the College of Physicians and the College of Pharmacists. The College of Physicians oversees the B.C. methadone program and licenses physicians to prescribe methadone as a treatment for heroin addiction. The College of Pharmacists licenses and oversees the pharmacists that dispense methadone. Pharmacists must follow the instructions of doctors' prescriptions when dispensing methadone, and that's true for all medical prescriptions. If they don't, there are consequences, and the College of Pharmacists is willing to apply those consequences.

For the members' interest, tomorrow the ministry and the college are again meeting with the Surrey council to solve this issue.

T. Bhullar: My question is to the Attorney General. It's with respect to the case of Vaid that places limits, as I read it, on parliamentary privilege. It is my understanding that the federal government has requested leave to the Supreme Court of Canada for appeal. Should leave be granted, will the Attorney General call for a vote in this House on whether or not we should apply for intervener status?

Hon. G. Plant: Well, I appreciate the work of the member in bringing to our attention what I believe is an important court decision. It's a decision of the Federal Court of Appeal. From what I've seen of it so far, I think it says some important things about parliamentary privilege, the relationship between the rights and privileges of members and the important duties of a body like a human rights commission. The usual practice we follow in the Ministry of Attorney General is that we wait to see if leave is in fact granted by the Supreme Court of Canada and then make a decision about intervener status. I'd certainly be happy to hear more from the member about his views on whether we should seek intervener status, and indeed I would welcome the views of any member of the House on that particular question.

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

Hon. G. Cheema: I would like to inform the member that the director of mental health and addictions has been in close contact with the family members to ensure that a support system is in place for them during this very difficult time. Presently the NHA has shifted staffing resources over to Prince Rupert as an interim measure to cover off the staffing shortages.

NHA is also working with the hospital and the Ministry of Children and Family Development to strengthen services. They are also improving information systems

and using tele–mental health services to increase services in the area. NHA is also looking at developing supportive independent living units in Prince Rupert.

A forensic liaison worker's position has also just been approved. It's important to note that the merging of mental health and addiction has been very helpful for NHA in working to resolve the issues of mental health in Prince Rupert.

R. Lee: My question is to the Minister of Advanced Education. Many of my constituents have come to me for clarification on this government's commitment to research and development. Many of them have been hearing that the government has cut back funding in this area. To the Minister of Advanced Education: is this true? How much has the government committed to R and D this year?

Hon. S. Bond: Probably there's no more compelling reason to talk about research than the stories shared by my colleague from Surrey–Green Timbers today. Also, the information that we've received is that as of today, the B.C. genome centre has received a viral sample from Toronto and is working very hard, as we speak, to look at cracking the challenging situation that's faced with SARS in the country.

This government recognizes the importance of research and development. In fact, we have invested almost $700 million across a number of ministries in this government to ensure that research and development not only continues, but that we're able to attract the best and brightest researchers to the province.

J. MacPhail: On February 12 the Premier said in his infomercial that northern communities have told the government it shouldn't sell B.C. Rail's railbed. The Premier said he wouldn't. He said: "They've told us we should keep the tracks, and we will."

Last week the Premier began dodging even on that commitment. Here's his quote last week. "Keeping the tracks and the railbed" has now become his new quote. "The B.C. Rail right-of-way will be maintained in public hands." There's a world of difference there. Tracks and railbeds are physical assets, and a right-of-way is not. Perhaps the Minister of Transportation could sort out the Premier's confusion.

Can she confirm that the Premier will stand by his commitment to the people of British Columbia that the province will retain ownership of B.C. Rail's tracks and railbed? Simple question — yes or no.

D. MacKay: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. The Francois Lake ferry near Burns Lake is a key link in the movement of timber, agricultural products and people across Francois Lake. Our government has committed to transfer control to a private operator who will be obliged to continue toll-free service at existing service levels.

Can the Minister of Transportation outline the request-for-proposal process for the Francois Lake ferry and tell us when she anticipates a new operator will take its place?

Hon. J. Reid: The Francois Lake ferry service is very important to residents, industry and commercial interests in that area. There is a request for proposals right now. Those proposals have to be submitted by May 9. Part of that request is that the successful proponent would have to provide an 18-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week toll-free service but also be able to provide for the additional capacity that is necessary to service the industry and the commercial interests.

The proponent, we're suggesting, would have to be able to provide that service by January 1, 2004. We will receive the proposals by May 9. We'll be able to assess them, and then we will be able to assign the successful proponent.

Hon. G. Plant: I move Motion 94 in the orders of the day, standing in the name of the Minister of Finance and House Leader.

Mr. Speaker: Motion 94 has been called, hon. members. Leave will be required to call Motion 94. Without disturbing the priorities of any other motions, shall leave be granted?

Hon. G. Plant: Leave having been granted, I move Motion 94 standing in the name of the Minister of Finance in the orders of the day.

Hon. G. Plant: I now move Motion 95 standing in the orders of the day in the name of the Minister of Finance.

Hon. G. Plant: I move Motion 96 in the orders of the day, also standing in the name of the Minister of Finance.

Hon. G. Plant: I move Motion 97 standing in the name of the Minister of Finance in the orders of the day.

Hon. G. Plant: I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members we will be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Attorney General and treaty negotiations office.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ATTORNEY GENERAL AND MINISTRY
RESPONSIBLE FOR TREATY NEGOTIATIONS

Hon. G. Plant: I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to begin the estimates debate on behalf of the Ministry of Attorney General and the treaty negotiations office. I think, for the convenience of members, we'll begin with the discussion of the estimates of the treaty negotiations office, and I have a few remarks to make as an introduction to that discussion.

I really am pleased to have the opportunity to rise today and speak to and in support of the budget of the treaty negotiations office. This office carries out a very important role in helping us all as legislators and helping government promote economic renewal in British Columbia.

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

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

The referendum achieved that objective and more. Over the course of the spring we had a vigorous public discussion about some difficult and important issues in British Columbia. We asked the people of British Columbia to provide government with a mandate on a set of principles that would guide the province in the treaty negotiation process.

We recognized going into that discussion that British Columbia is only one of three parties to each treaty negotiation. Each party brings its own vision to the table, and we as the government of British Columbia have an obligation to ensure that when we speak at the treaty table, we have some sense of what it is that the people of British Columbia want us to achieve on their behalf. That objective took the form of the statements of principle in the referendum ballot that was circulated as part of the referendum conducted last spring.

It was a novel exercise in direct democracy. I don't know that there have been any other examples of a referendum conducted by mail-in ballot on a provincewide basis outside the election cycle, particularly when it was not a simple yes or no question. This referendum asked people to think about principles. It asked them to think about what they wanted their government to achieve on their behalf at the treaty table.

We received over three-quarters of a million returned mail-in ballots. The eight statements of principle that were on the referendum ballot were, in fact, overwhelmingly endorsed by the public. They have been adopted by government and represent a framework that we will take forward as we move through the months and years to come.

It's important to remind members that the referendum was conducted on the basis that we were committed to the treaty process — that we intended to use the referendum to reinvigorate the treaty process. In the months since, we have moved forward on those commitments. We have endeavoured to build upon the momentum that was created by the referendum, by the heightened public awareness and by the recognition that this was and is an important task and public policy responsibility of government.

In the months since the referendum we have worked hard to bridge the gap that exists among the positions of the different parties in the process — to try and see if we can, each of us at each table where progress is possible, take the steps that are necessary to

find the common ground that we need if we're going to achieve agreement. Really, we have, I think, made great strides towards that. It's hard. It's difficult work, but I think it is time — it may be past time — after virtually a decade of work, to see if we can actually conclude the agreements that the treaty process was originally intended to produce.

Let me review some of the things that we have been doing to try to help achieve the outcome of negotiated agreements. Communications and consultation continue to be important responsibilities of government. We had a useful public conversation in the referendum, but the referendum was never intended to be the end of that conversation. In fact, we are anticipating at least 50 meetings with local governments and stakeholders about treaty issues in the fiscal year '03-04. We will continue to communicate. We will continue to consult. We will continue to listen.

We've also recognized that it's time to focus the energy and resources that we bring to the treaty process. We've looked across the landscape of some 42 tables that are officially or formally involved in the B.C. Treaty Commission process. We've asked ourselves whether there are some tables where the promise of success is more real in the short term. We've reorganized the treaty negotiations office to focus our resources on those tables where we believe there is opportunity for early success. We call those the "breakthrough tables." We are, I believe, making good progress with six first nations at breakthrough tables around the province.

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

Our approach has been to be flexible and creative, to look for new solutions to old problems and to take a new approach that says we are willing to open the door to discussions about some issues that have, for one reason or another, been kept off the tables. We hope for and, frankly, expect the same kind of creative and flexible thinking from our partners in these negotiations — both Canada and the first nations with whom we are negotiating.

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

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

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

Here is perhaps the way of expressing what's new about this approach. I believe that we can achieve the certainty we need without requiring the extinguishment of aboriginal rights or the use of the legal technique known as cede, release or surrender. In outlining these things, I'm saying, essentially, what we're prepared to do to try to help reach agreement, recognizing that we are still engaged in the hard task of negotiating agreements. Time will tell, of course, if these new approaches achieve the success we hope they will achieve.

Let me move on to another issue: self-government. There's been a lot of talk about self-government. In particular, how can we move forward with an approach to self-government that respects the interests of all British Columbians? We have some pretty important objectives as government. These objectives are expressed in the referendum principle that the public supported in the referendum campaign last summer. Those objectives include some pretty obvious and practical objectives.

Government structures and relationships need to be flexible. Whether they are first nations, municipal governments, provinces or federal governments — wherever you look — governments need to be financially accountable and democratically responsible. We think we can make progress on achieving these objectives with respect to self-government, and we can do it in a way that is respectful of first nations interests while ensuring that the broader public interest of the people of British Columbia is satisfied.

Another issue where we've made steps towards taking a new approach is the issue of reconciliation. That is the recognition that we have much to regret in the history of our relations with aboriginal peoples in this part of North America. In fact, our history does not

leave us much to be proud of in that relationship. It's time to acknowledge that reality, and it's time to move forward in a way that says we can work to reconcile our differences, to acknowledge the past and to see if we can build a new relationship based on mutual respect.

I acknowledge, as with all of these objectives, that there are challenges here. It's not up to one party to a relationship to say that the relationship is working. All parties have to be convinced that the relationship is working. We, for our part, are willing to take the steps towards building that new relationship based on mutual respect. I think we'll see many opportunities for government, over the months to come, to pursue this theme of reconciliation in a meaningful way.

One specific initiative, which is part of the overall responsibility of the treaty negotiations office but is not necessarily simply a manifestation of the treaty negotiation project, is the economic measures fund. Economic development for first nations is a critically important objective of government. It should not wait on hold while we negotiate comprehensive treaties. There is work to be done now and work that can be done now. With respect to economic development, we have committed $10 million a year over four years to establish an economic measures fund that will enhance the participation of first nations in the economy of British Columbia.

To date some 57 agreements are being implemented, with a further 54 in active negotiation. We believe we will achieve the service plan objective of ten to 15 significant agreements in the fiscal year '03-04. The list of these agreements is long, but among the major agreements are some major forestry projects, shellfish initiatives, irrigation schemes, independent power projects, and oil and gas training programs. These offer great potential to ensure that aboriginal British Columbians have an equal opportunity to participate in the development of the economy of British Columbia.

These projects will help develop the important skills and tools needed to take advantage of economic activity. They are more broad than simply training, and I can assure the members of this House and this committee that we will evaluate the results of these projects and measure our successes. But I believe that there will be successes and that we can use those successes as the platform to build further successes.

The fund provides opportunities for first nations to be constructive, full participants in the economic life of British Columbia. That is the key to the new relationship, in my view. Rather than seeing ourselves through tired old lenses that divide the world into us and them, it's time to determine how we can reconfigure a relationship across a barrier that has existed for too long and to rebuild a relationship based on working together, on seeing ourselves as partners in the joint enterprise of building a stronger province.

I think there are opportunities across the range of economic development, whether it's oil and gas or aquaculture or forestry or tourism or ski resorts. Wherever it is and whatever the initiative, we have a great opportunity to build a prosperous future together. It's an opportunity not without challenges, and we are mindful of the challenges. But, frankly, I am somewhat hopeful that we are on the verge of taking some positive steps forward in the months to come. I look forward to the opportunity to discuss these issues as members may be interested in them.

Hon. G. Cheema: I have here one very important member of the Sikh community from the lower mainland, Mr. Karm Singh, and he's accompanied by a few guests from outside the country: Mr. Sewa Singh, Surinder Kaur, Dalip Kaur, Ranjit Kaur, Sukhjit Kaur and Varinder Singh. Mr. Singh is a very well-respected member of the community, and I would like the House to please make them very welcome.

J. MacPhail: I've been in and out, but did the Attorney General introduce his staff?

Hon. G. Plant: I'm pleased to do that. I'm joined by Philip Steenkamp, the deputy minister of the treaty negotiations office. To his right is Ingrid Fee, who is the director of the corporate services branch. Behind me is Jim Crone, who is the assistant deputy minister of management services for the overall ministry.

J. MacPhail: I will start, by agreement. We'll do the treaty negotiations first.

Let me just outline part of the direction…. Well, no, this is the direction that I'm taking on treaty negotiations. I hope we can actually have a discussion — I will certainly try, Mr. Chair — that moves toward understanding a positive direction on these matters.

I have said on the record many times that I thought the referendum was costly and politically divisive. However, the government went through with it, and it was widely touted by this current government as a way to revitalize the treaty process and get the public involved. I had an opportunity to examine the remarks of the current Attorney General in his reply to the Speech from the Throne earlier this year, where those very points were made by the Attorney General — that it was a way to revitalize the treaty process and get the public involved.

My latest accounting from Elections B.C. of an estimate of what the referendum cost is that they're ballparking it around $7.5 million. It's the latest estimate; the final figures are not in yet. That's how much so far,

we know, was spent to consult British Columbians and to ask the eight principles.

I want to look at that in the context of what the Attorney General has been commenting on publicly around the Snuneymuxw potential agreement-in-principle. Then I also want to talk about the cutting of funding to the treaty negotiations office. Then my final point in this area will be around what actions have flowed from the expression of regret that was given in the Speech from the Throne.

I want to use as a point of discussion the Snuneymuxw Nanaimo treaty table. I know it hasn't reached the point of agreement-in-principle yet, but it is being widely reported, and the Attorney General has engaged — at least twice that I know of — publicly in the media on that matter.

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

I am a champion of resolving land claims and reaching treaties — a huge champion. There is only one way of reaching a treaty, and that is for all parties to agree. I champion that. I do want to see what the provincial government's role is in reaching treaties, given the referendum. The referendum set out, very explicitly, eight principles and said to British Columbians that the ministry would abide by those principles during negotiations.

Here's what people voted for — not me, but people did. Eighty-five percent of the people agreed that private property should not be expropriated for treaty settlements. However, there are reports that the Snuneymuxw settlement includes some private lands. I'm wondering whether the Attorney General could clarify: does the concept of willing buyer, willing seller apply, or has there been a shift on the part of the province?

Hon. G. Plant: I welcome the member's commitment to the treaty process. She made a number of comments in the course of that last contribution to the debate, leading up to a fairly specific question.

The referendum principles are hugely important to us as we move forward to achieve agreement at the tables — particularly the six breakthrough tables, but all of the tables where negotiations are taking place in British Columbia.

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

But on the east coast of Vancouver Island — thanks to the actions of predecessors creating the railway grant and things like that — there really is very, very little Crown land available. So we have looked at the acquisition of private property as a tool to help us achieve agreement in Nanaimo — but only on a willing seller, willing buyer basis — and that is, in my view, completely consistent with the referendum principle.

J. MacPhail: When I was debating the Forestry Revitalization Act with the Minister of Forests, I raised some concerns brought forward by first nations. It is epitomized by the Carrier-Sekani position — but certainly much broader than Carrier-Sekani — about a 20 percent takeback of Crown lands that was being done outside of the treaty-making process. I asked at the time, and the Minister of Forests replied: "Don't worry. The takeback would resolve the first nations issues around obtaining Crown land that had forest values on it." I also raise the issue that: why wouldn't there be a principle to resolve first nations treaty issues, in terms of forested lands, of a concept of willing buyer, willing seller? For instance, any company holding tenure could enter into willing buyer, willing seller.

The Minister of Forests said — I'm not going to ask the Attorney General to justify the Minister of Forests' comments, because he would have to take time to look them up — that this would bring greater certainty. Well, we do know — and I'm sure the Attorney General has had time to see how this issue of proper allocation of forest land resources is not working at all — that the matter is blowing up, particularly with the Carrier-Sekani in terms of perhaps going forward with a boycott of B.C. wood products. Why was the principle of willing buyer, willing seller not pursued in that area?

Hon. G. Plant: Well, I am as interested as the member is in having a good discussion about the work of the treaty negotiations office, but as I heard her question, it was precisely a question that ought to have been directed at the minister responsible for the forest revitalization legislation. The issues around the approach that the government has taken with respect to the need to take back a percentage of the major licences across the province are issues that the member presumably has already had some opportunity to canvass with the Minister of Forests and may have further opportunities in the future.

It is interesting that when we come again to the question of what we are doing in the treaty negotia-

tions office to attempt to reach agreement in treaty negotiations in a manner that is consistent with the referendum principles, we're also guided by the second principle, which is that we will, generally speaking, avoid interfering with existing leases and licences, but we'll compensate fully when that interference is unavoidable. That is certainly something we intend to continue to do as we make the decisions necessary to try to achieve treaty settlements.

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

What I wanted to explore with the minister is that willing buyer, willing seller is a concept that is being explored at the Snuneymuxw table, where there are limited avenues available — i.e., limited Crown land. Why couldn't this approach be taken to resolve not only the issues of treaty-making but changes in forest policy that bring in first nations in an equal, fully consultative way to allow for a willing buyer, willing seller approach to tenure?

Hon. G. Plant: I would like to be more helpful than I can be. The member's question…. I appreciate that she gave it a second shot, but as I heard her second question, it was a question that ought to have been directed to the Minister of Forests who, as she describes it, has been embarking on a forest revitalization project that is — to quote her, I assume, quoting the minister — "outside the treaty process." I mean, the member has an interesting question, but it is not a question that I am going to be able to assist in answering, because I'm not the minister responsible for implementing the forest revitalization program.

I do hope that as the minister moves forward with the forestry revitalization program, there will in fact be opportunities for the minister and government to make fibre and revenues available to first nations on a case-by-case negotiated basis in keeping with the framework the minister will develop. I do believe that will contribute to the general goal of economic development, which I certainly support.

I'm also fully mindful of the fact that the Carrier-Sekani apparently are not going to publicly support the government's initiatives in that regard. I must say, in all frankness to the member and to the members of the House, that as it happens, the Carrier-Sekani table in the treaty process is a particularly unproductive table. We don't seem to be able to find a way to build the ingredients of a productive treaty negotiation with the Carrier-Sekani. In a way, I must admit I'm not all that surprised that the Carrier-Sekani are expressing concerns about some other aspect of government policy.

J. MacPhail: It does seem to be a bit surprising for a government that wants to resolve treaties to exacerbate the difficulties at this particular table by the forest revitalization policy. Perhaps I can just explain the link, and then we'll leave it, because the Attorney General doesn't seem to…. Well, the Attorney General can't answer the question.

The Carrier-Sekani singled out Canfor Corp., charging for a boycott. They're calling for Home Depot to boycott wood and paper products from Carrier-Sekani's traditional territory in B.C.'s northern interior. They're proceeding with singling out Canfor for that boycott, charging that the wood it supplies to Home Depot is stolen from Carrier lands and that that wood will be removed from being a way to resolve their treaty.

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

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

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

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

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

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

B.C. then reviewed its mandate and subsequently authorized provincial negotiators in October of 2002 to do just that — to table an offer of half a million cubic metres of wood per year for the term of the licences. This would have led to an overall allocation of 1.5 million cubic metres of wood. In addition, the province committed to providing half a million dollars per year for two years for economic development related to forestry.

On October 22 of last year the Carrier-Sekani tribal council wrote to the province indicating that they had rejected the provincial offer and that they were terminating the forestry bridging agreement. I am informed that since then, the Ministry of Forests has been undertaking negotiations with individual bands within the tribal council and on the third of March of this year apparently made a direct award to one of those bands, the Saik'uz, of 450,000 cubic metres over three years. There are discussions for short-term volume that are continuing with other Carrier-Sekani tribal council bands.

Sometimes it is easier to pay attention to the rhetoric and harder to keep your eyes focused on the reality. I think the reality is that the government of British Columbia has worked hard over the last couple of years, both when the member was in office as government and also since the election under our leadership, to try to make a significant volume of timber and other economic opportunities related to forestry available to the Carrier-Sekani tribal council. We will continue to work hard to do what we can to ensure that the aboriginal people who live in the communities that are part of the Carrier-Sekani tribal council do have some reasonable measure of access and opportunity to participate in the forest economy.

The member asked the question about referendum principle No. 3 — that hunting, fishing and recreational opportunities on Crown land should be ensured for all British Columbians. We are working hard at each of the tables to ensure that the AIP provisions give effect to that principle. The issue of fish carries with it some additional challenges because the fundamental constitutional responsibility for managing the fish resources, particularly salmon, is federal, not provincial.

There are some negotiated provisions in the proposed Snuneymuxw AIP that relate to domestic fishing entitlements. Those are there to recognize the well-recognized rights in respect of fish for food, ceremonial and social purposes. There are also some provisions in the Snuneymuxw documents with respect to opportunities to participate in commercial fishing.

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

I'm pretty sure that the Snuneymuxw position with respect to those issues — that is to say, their starting position — is that they have a largely unrestricted right to exploit all fish resources for sustenance and commercial purposes. The AIP goes a considerable distance towards putting boundaries on that claim. There is no exclusive priority right to fish commercially recognized in the AIP, but I recognize that the parties have more work to do as we get to AIP — then, more importantly, as we work beyond AIP to try to get the final agreement to ensure that we have arrangements with respect to fishing rights that respect not only the rights of the Snuneymuxw but the important position of the recreational, commercial, sport and processing sectors of the fish industry that also have a huge stake in the fish resources of British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: I'm sorry. Did I miss something? Is the Attorney General suggesting the Snuneymuxw treaty is being carved out of the old Douglas treaties?

Hon. G. Plant: When the member was in government, her government agreed that the…. I'm not certain of the details at the moment, whether that was a joint agreement that involved the Treaty Commission and the federal government. At any rate, the government and the Treaty Commission accepted a statement of intent from the Snuneymuxw first nation, and there have been treaty negotiations taking place with the Snuneymuxw for eight years or so. One of the issues that has been on the table in those negotiations for a pretty long time, perhaps from the outset, has been how to achieve reconciliation, clarity and certainty around Douglas treaty rights, which the Snuneymuxw are participants in, as part of the work of seeking a modern, comprehensive agreement.

J. MacPhail: Okay, but I think the Attorney General is trying to put up — I'm not sure if it's a defence or an explanation — an explanation of why exclusive fishing rights are being discussed at all at this table.

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

between by this government. What I'm trying to figure out is what this government learned from the referendum, why it did it and what it means for the people who participated in the referendum. One of the questions that the Liberal government put on it said — and 93 percent of people agreed — that hunting, fishing and recreational opportunities on Crown land should be ensured for all British Columbians.

I checked. The MLAs in the area covered by the Snuneymuxw agreement didn't go out and say: "But by the way, you're excluded from this." I'm just trying to figure out what the tens of thousands of people who voted yes in the referendum are getting for that vote.

In the referendum, 87 percent of people agreed that aboriginal self-government should have the characteristics of local government with powers delegated from Canada and British Columbia. Again, there are only reports, but the Attorney General has commented publicly on this — that the Snuneymuxw deal will include a much broader form of self-government than the characteristics of local government. There are reports, locally anyway, that that first nations community will enjoy powers much greater than those of a local government.

Hon. G. Plant: The short answer to the two-part question is that what the people of Vancouver Island and the Nanaimo area are going to get is, I hope, an agreement-in-principle. If the agreement-in-principle is ratified on the basis that is currently being examined by the first nation, by Canada and by the province, they're going to get an AIP that gives, I think, pretty strong effect to each of the eight referendum principles.

The member may wish to characterize the principles as though they were ironclad guarantees, but she will search the public record in vain for any statement by the government that the referendum principles were anything but principles. They were principles; they are principles. They are principles in the sense that they are the things we take in to the negotiating table, because I believe it's better to be negotiating from a platform of principle than to be negotiating from a platform of expediency.

When we are negotiating, we also recognize there is sometimes a need for some give and take. While I think it is important that we minimize that to the extent possible, there will be some times and places where I will have to stand up and explain to members of the House how it was that we did not achieve an agreement that reflects any one of these eight principles in full. Thankfully, that is not the occasion today. That is, the AIP we are hoping to ratify with the Snuneymuxw does, in fact, maintain the principle that hunting, fishing, and recreational opportunities on Crown land should be ensured for all British Columbians, particularly in the way that the principle was consistently explained during the referendum campaign.

Similarly, I believe the provisions with respect to self-government that we are working on negotiating with the Snuneymuxw will, in fact, have the characteristics of local government and that they will include powers that are delegated from Canada and British Columbia. In that respect, they will also be consistent with referendum principle No. 6, while also ensuring — just as we have said consistently throughout the piece — that aboriginal self-government will be real, that it will be meaningful and that it will ensure that the Snuneymuxw people have the tools they need to make the decisions they need to make in order to build a stronger community. I have been consistent about that for as long as I've been talking about this issue, and we continue to work to ensure that self-government will, in fact, achieve those characteristics.

J. MacPhail: Well, the questions I'm asking are: what's different as a result of the referendum? Clearly, the Attorney General is suggesting that the referendum was only conducted on the basis of establishing some principles. It is interesting to note how much he emphasizes that and that he is using the language of flexibility.

Mr. Chair, I hope that as people listen to this, they understand I am fully committed to a treaty process that achieves aboriginal title, which is done in a way that confirms aboriginal rights and that is fair and just. Many of these issues that I'm raising right now about the Snuneymuxw agreement-in-principle — in fact, all of them…. I'm glad the agreement-in-principle is moving in that direction, but I do want to know how the achievement of this AIP meets the test of what people voted for in the referendum.

Prior to this government having a referendum that cost millions of dollars and was divisive at the time, there were principles in place. There were negotiating principles in place agreed upon by all three parties: the government of Canada, the government of B.C. and first nations. The referendum conducted by this government tested a change in a couple of those principles, two of which I have explored. So we'll just have to see whether, indeed, the agreement-in-principle contains the direction that was in place prior to this referendum or whether the agreement-in-principle actually meets the test of the 763,480 people who voted in the referendum and whether there was really any point to the referendum.

The Snuneymuxw will be an interesting example of what was achieved by the referendum. I do know, having met with first nations leaders both at the band level and at the provincial organizational level, that the referendum slowed down negotiations almost to a stop for the better part of a year and that the treaty referendum process was very divisive.

On the treaty negotiations office, the Attorney General has said that he's committed to achieving treaties. The minister has also said that he wants to fast-track treaty talks. From reading the Estimates, I understand that resources provided for negotiations are being cut by almost $3 million in this budget. What impact will these reductions have on the treaty negotiating process?

We inherited a stalled treaty process, and I think the last 22 months of activity has represented and constitutes evidence that as a government, we have done what I think needed to be done to reinvigorate this treaty process. We engaged in an important public discussion.

I accept the member's challenge to ensure that as we achieve success, if we achieve success, we can measure the successes at the treaty table against the elements of the public discussion in the form of the eight referendum principles. As we do that, I know the member will be as happy as I am to ensure that we discuss all eight principles, not just the two or three that are of particular interest to her this afternoon. I think that when they examine the eight principles as a whole — and I know people will do that — they'll see that we have actually, I think, made some real progress at treaty negotiations in relation to some particular issues where negotiations appear to have stalled.

But the fact, also, is that we have not actually achieved final agreements. Nor do we as yet have in place right now in British Columbia any formally ratified agreements-in-principle, so we have work to do. That work is being done by the treaty negotiations office. Admittedly, it's with a reduction in the budget for the negotiations side of the ministry of approximately $3 million, but I think we have in place a streamlined tool for achieving government's goals that can, in fact, do the job we need to do.

Among other things, in the course of reconfiguring the ministry or the office within the larger ministry to ensure that we can continue to do the work it has to do, we've protected all of the chief negotiator positions and the majority of our negotiator positions, because they are the people we rely on to do the work at the tables to produce the results.

As we continue this work, we are still looking at different ways of doing business. There seems to be a part of this business that involves an awful lot of travel. We're trying to look for ways to expand teleconferencing or video conferencing as a tool for doing some of the business that is often done face to face.

I may actually have misstated. I think I said we retained all the negotiators. We kept six chief negotiator positions and 21 of the 24 negotiator positions. But it's part of this to recognize that when I talked about the breakthrough strategy — the focus on the six tables — that does involve a deliberate allocation of resources to ensure that we are putting a lot of effort into the six tables and, frankly, perhaps a little bit less effort at some of the tables where, in my view, there isn't any serious prospect of significant progress in the near future.

J. MacPhail: The Attorney General's ministry is reducing its treaty settlement and implementation costs to $4.7 million. By my calculation that's a $15 million cut. What's the justification for that cut? I assumed this was the money that would actually smooth the way to settlements.

Hon. G. Plant: I just want to check the numbers, but I think that's right. The reduction in treaty settlement and implementation costs from $20.666 million to $4.701 million is a reduction of just about $16 million. That is a reduction to McLeod Lake stumpage payments of just over $15 million as a result of the fact that much of the lands identified for settlement purposes have been transferred to Canada. There is also a minor adjustment to the Nisga'a final agreement interest and amortization payment schedule. In effect, both of those numbers are accounting entries rather than meaningful reductions in transfer payments or payments of the nature that the member implied in her question.

J. MacPhail: The minister has already referred to the fact that there's been a cut in the treaty negotiations office FTEs — the staff. My calculation is that there were 124 FTEs and that there will now be 85. It's a reduction of about a third of the staff.

Can the minister — sorry, he went by this fairly quickly — explain the assignment of that staff? A corollary question to this is that on the service plan, the ministry has set out a goal of reaching 16 to 24 agreements with first nations by '05-06. What will be the assignment of this reduced staff, and how will they be assigned to reach that goal of 16 to 24 agreements?

Hon. G. Plant: I'll deal with the first part of that first. In fiscal '02-03 there were 39 positions eliminated through voluntary departures, early retirements and workforce adjustment. That reduction led to a restructuring of the office. It was actually, I think, obviously a difficult process for many people involved in it, but in another way it was a welcome opportunity to rethink how the TNO was organized.

What happened, among other things, was that two divisions that existed within the office were merged into one. All of the administrative support positions were consolidated into one branch. In effect, there's a bit less jurisdictional box-building and a bit more sharing across the office of staff and staff resources.

At the senior level — the deputy minister and the assistant deputy minister — there is now just one ADM; there were two. At the senior level there's much more strategic thinking around the deployment of resources to achieve results. As opposed to having departments where people worked away within the four corners of a workplan that may or may not have been attached to the prospect of success, the office as a whole is now functioning in a more integrated way, I think, to try to focus on achieving some real successes. Resources are more flexibly available, and they are in fact deployed more flexibly and strategically.

The targets that the member talked about, I think, break down into at least a couple of components. The '03-04 target in the service plan for the number of significant treaty-related agreements is four to six. A separate target is the number of significant agreements focusing on economic priorities. There the target for '03-04 is ten to 15. The member is right that the first target increases over the next couple of years up to between six and nine. By the time we get to '05-06, we are collec-

I think we actually are ahead of schedule in terms of the agreements that we have already been able to achieve for the economic measures fund. When it comes to focusing more closely on the treaty process, we also think we have had some successes. I'll offer this retrospectively. I know the member's question was prospective, but let me illustrate how this works retrospectively.

For '02-03 the service plan target for the number of significant treaty-related agreements was three to four, and we did achieve three agreements. We achieved a land protection agreement with the Yale first nation. We achieved a treaty-related measure agreement with the Snuneymuxw on the acquisition of two fee simple properties. We also achieved success, at the least at the negotiator level, in producing the elements of the AIP that is being examined by government for ratification in Snuneymuxw.

I think when we look forward in the year we're now engaged in, we will be able to meet the higher target we set for ourselves, and two years from now the still-higher target. I think we will be able to achieve that provided, of course, that my hopes are realized with respect to the work we are doing at the breakthrough tables, where we are hard at work now.

J. MacPhail: Do the various tables know where they fall, either fast-tracked or not? Can the minister provide examples of each?

Hon. G. Plant: We don't have these things put into formal categories or boxes, partly because we do try to be flexible, and needs and opportunities sometimes change. But I did speak earlier about the idea of breakthrough tables, and this — I should be clear — is a term that we use. We don't go around asking other people in Canada or the first nations if they necessarily want to be classified or called a breakthrough table. I think first nations that are in the process are just working to achieve agreements at whatever pace they can. But for our part, the six tables where we think there is a chance or — maybe better than a chance — an opportunity for early success are Snuneymuxw, Sliammon, Tsawwassen, Nuu-chah-nulth, Gitanyow and Lheidli-T'enneh.

J. MacPhail: Well, I don't want to be cheeky, but Snuneymuxw is being counted twice, in '03-04 and '02-03. I thought the minister said that as one of his three achievements for '02-03, Snuneymuxw was on that.

Page 25 of the service plan. I was just looking at it, because the Attorney General has made it clear to all of us who are listening that principles are just principles. But page 25 of the service plan says this: "Performance measures indicate that 100 percent of negotiated agreements are to reflect the referendum principles endorsed by British Columbians in a referendum." So does that still stand?

Hon. G. Plant: As I said earlier, I think that the proposed AIP in Nanaimo is, in fact, an agreement that reflects the referendum principles. I am very comfortable to have this as a continuing target for me and the work that the TNO does over the course of the three years of this service plan.

The service plan also states that the ministry intends to reduce the number of incidents involving direct action and blockades by first nations. We've already discussed the Carrier-Sekani situation, where there's actually a direct action of a boycott now occurring because of the government's forest policy. Can the minister explain how he intends to accomplish that goal?

Hon. G. Plant: One of the things we do in the treaty negotiations office is work in concert with other ministries. We attempt to be thoughtful in our management of issues as they arise and respond to incidents that occur from time to time in a way that attempts to minimize their impact, bring them to early resolution — hopefully a successful resolution. Broadly speaking, my hope is that by achieving some success in the treaty process, we will reduce some of the sources of friction that exist in British Columbia. In fact, if you look back over the last year, I would have to say that the incidence of litigation certainly hasn't gone down, but I think there's been a significant reduction in the incidence of direct action and blockades. I know that the member is very concerned about the threats that she hears from the Carrier-Sekani with respect to consumer boycotts, and I must say that I don't think those threats are, frankly, terribly constructive in terms of making a positive difference in anybody's lives. But we will certainly do what we can to manage those issues as they arise.

We decided we would put in the service plan, as a measure of the success of the work we're doing, some reference to the incidence of litigation and the incidence of blockades as a sort of a test against whether or not — viewed from the perspective of the province as a whole — we're having some success in managing our relationship as government with first nations in a way that results in constructive resolution of issues as opposed to lawsuits or blockades.

There are some specific initiatives that we have underway. In fact, there are a number of them. But to give some examples, so the member can…. I'll try to make this concrete for the member's benefit. We have in place an alternate dispute resolution protocol with the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. We have worked hard to establish…. I won't say that they've been established yet, but we're in the early stages of establishing what for want of a better term I'll call a rights and title table or a forum for the Shuswap nation and also for the Treaty 8 nations.

The member will see a connecting link, perhaps, among those three groups. None of those three groups are in the formal treaty process, in the B.C. Treaty Commission process, and there are a couple of things I

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

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

J. MacPhail: And will there be a tally posted or a monitoring of the direction that blockading, direct-action incidents and lawsuits…? Will it be posted?

Hon. G. Plant: When we report a year from now, we'll be reporting on the extent to which we have or have not achieved success in respect of those two outcome measures.

J. MacPhail: There's been an increasing emphasis, I'm told, on interim-based measures as well as the institution of time-outs. We've discussed that a little bit, the time-outs. Can the minister explain how these measures are influencing the treaty negotiation process?

Hon. G. Plant: Let me speak first, if I may, about the idea of time-outs. Let me provide the member with a bit of context. I think roughly a year and a half ago the B.C. Treaty Commission issued a retrospective report — I think it was called Looking Forward, Looking Back — that was a pretty thoughtful analysis of how the treaty process was working and how it wasn't working.

The Treaty Commission identified some suggestions for improvement or ideas for how either a new approach could be taken to a particular issue or, in some cases, why the parties ought to look back at the task force report from 1991 and bring back to the centre of the discussion some issues that the task force had thought should be front and centre but that perhaps had been left to the side of the road over time. The Treaty Commission's report led to an initiative, which was supported by the First Nations Summit Task Group, by Canada and by British Columbia, to establish working groups of officials that would get together and continue to explore ideas for how to improve the treaty process to see if there could be some measure of agreement on some issues that might help speed things up or achieve better results at the table.

One of the issues that was identified — I'm pretty sure it was identified in the BCTC retrospective report — was the idea of table assessments. That is, at each table the three parties to a negotiation should be frank with each other about their objectives and what they were achieving or not achieving and have a dialogue about whether things were moving along at a pace that was useful. The idea that the tables should conduct self-assessments produced sort of a second idea, which is that if the three parties, through individual negotiation, each agreed that in fact there was nothing productive happening in the formal treaty negotiation process, they could agree to take a time-out from formal treaty negotiations.

I think it was always expected by the Treaty Commission that when the parties took a time-out, they would do so on the basis that they would try to commit their energy to some other project — specifically, try to find ways of exploring the issues that were the reasons behind the lack of progress and see if those issues could be resolved. The idea of time-outs, I think it's fair to say, was not well received by the First Nations Summit Task Group, really, pretty much at any point in the process. After some discussion including a discussion that attempted to see if there was something else you could call it that didn't sound quite so dramatic, the principals — that is to say, Canada, the First Nations Summit and the province — for all intents and purposes, pretty well abandoned the idea of anything like a formal time-out.

When I talk about the strategic deployment of the resources within the treaty negotiations office and the search for breakthrough tables, I'm not offering a formal structure within which the province has abandoned negotiations at any table that is in the treaty process. There are some tables in the process where the parties don't meet very often. There may be a few tables where the parties don't even meet once a year. They still meet, and if that's good enough for the parties, then we're willing to continue to support that.

Those are time-outs. I apologize, in a way, for probably a longer answer than the member perhaps expected.

Let me say something about the idea of interim measures. The first thing I want to say is that for the purpose of this discussion, I'm going to try not to get trapped up in acronyms and terminology, although for the purpose of organizing how government spends money, sometimes acronyms and terminology are essential. There are a variety of tools that we are using to try to build strong relationships with first nations where that is an option, to create opportunities for economic development, to accelerate the transfer of some benefits that are associated with the treaty process, and to try and create certainty.

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

better relationships without waiting until you get to final agreement in the treaty process.

J. MacPhail: Thank you to the Attorney General. Recently we were informed that the city of Delta is pulling out of the lower mainland treaty advisory committee. I've heard the Attorney General comment on that. The mayor of Delta, Lois Jackson, was actually quoted as saying that the mandate of the committee is too broad, that the city's concerns regarding the negotiations between the province and the Tsawwassen first nations would be better met if the city actually had a direct voice in the treaty negotiating process. Can the minister update us on what he is doing regarding the city of Delta's withdrawal and their request?

Hon. G. Plant: Well, the first thing I can report to the member is that I had a meeting with Mayor Jackson and Councillor Campbell a week ago, I think, Friday. That was a helpful meeting because it allowed the councillor and the mayor to communicate directly face to face with me about some of the reasons behind the decision Delta took to withdraw from the lower mainland treaty advisory committee.

The lower mainland treaty advisory committee is a very useful group, from my perspective. It brings together representatives of municipal governments around the lower mainland to try to offer input and advice to government about municipal and related issues that arise at a variety of tables — not just Delta but all of the tables in the lower mainland. I am very grateful for the time the LMTAC people spend in providing input. We use it as a place we go to consult with local governments about local government issues generally and about lower mainland local government issues with respect to the treaty process.

Delta, I think, was experiencing some frustration because a member of their city council was the LMTAC representative to the province's treaty team in the Tsawwassen negotiations. What that meant was that as the LMTAC representative to the province's treaty team, they were subject to the confidentiality rules that apply to members of the province's negotiating team. That, I think, operated in a practical way as a restraint on the Delta rep's ability to go and communicate to his or her fellow city councillors about what was up, what was happening, what the issues were and what the ideas were for solving those issues. I think it also acted as a bit of an impediment on that person's — whoever the representative would have been from time to time — ability to communicate with the people to whom they are democratically accountable as city councillors.

I think it's also fair to say that Mayor Jackson does not see LMTAC as a very useful group. On that point, I think the mayor and I will respectfully have to disagree.

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

J. MacPhail: Yes, and Delta, of course, was a member of that committee for almost ten years, so they certainly speak with authority on that matter.

I'm wondering whether the minister can update us on the status of negotiations with the Tsawwassen first nation.

Hon. G. Plant: The short answer is: we're close, but we're not there yet. We've made good progress over the past few weeks. There was hope that there would be an agreement, an AIP, reached by the end of March. But as we got close to that deadline, I think the parties collectively recognized that the list of issues where there was still difference was getting shorter, but the issues on the list were getting harder. We are continuing to work hard to address those issues.

I'm optimistic but cautious that we are within, I hope, some weeks of — certainly not months away — achieving the outline of an agreement there that the negotiators can present to their principals for ratification. But I have to say that while progress has been pretty good lately, it's hardly surprising that the last handful of issues are tough issues, and we're doing the best we can to resolve them.

J. MacPhail: In this year's throne speech the government made a number of commitments to first nations. One of those commitments was a three-year, $30 million economic measures fund. Where is that money coming from?

Hon. G. Plant: The throne speech commitment, I think, represented a change over last year. When the fund was announced about a year or so ago — and I have to admit I don't have, readily at hand, the date when the fund was announced…. The fund was originally announced as a three-year, $30 million fund — that is, $10 million a year over three years.

The throne speech commitment represented an extension of the fund by one year so that it's a $40 million fund over four years. I think there's a special allocation for that in the budget. It is in vote 12 of the treaty negotiations office. It is the appropriation described as "economic measures," where the amount for '03-04 is $10 million. It's $10 million a year over the four years.

J. MacPhail: And the $4-odd million for implementation is over and above that?

Hon. G. Plant: It is not a fund where there are application forms available in government agent offices across the province. Rather, it is what we call a corporate fund. There's a framework that we follow for decisions. We have identified some priority areas for disbursements under the fund — oil and gas, forestry, aquaculture, the Olympics and tourism. I think they are the five areas. I may not have got that exactly right.

What happens is that there is a deputy ministers committee relying upon the ideas that come forward from line ministry officials and from other people. It's the deputy ministers committee on natural resources and the economy. It is that committee which is charged with the responsibility of approving projects and which is responsible for the sort of strategic organization of the fund. We do the day-to-day administration, and we in my office will be responsible for leading the monitoring and evaluation of the results of these projects.

J. MacPhail: Are there any restrictions being put on first nations groups who apply for funding under this program? Chief Stewart Phillip, president of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, has claimed the first nations receiving funding must agree not to assert their aboriginal rights on the ground or in the courts while they're receiving funding. I've also heard that from the First Nations Summit as well.

Hon. G. Plant: I have to say that's not a correct statement of our view. I have to say that it is difficult for government to build a constructive relationship with a first nation that is suing you. As a general rule — not necessarily universal, but as a general rule — we, frankly, don't think we should be in the business of providing funding in this form while we're engaged in active litigation with a first nation. Those things are also examined on a case-by-case basis.

It's not really even a fund where first nations, in the sense that the member used the term in her question, "apply" for funds. It is a fund where we, inside government, determine how we can make best use of the dollars to achieve the objectives of the fund. Then we work with first nations to see if we can sit down and negotiate agreements that will achieve the objectives of the fund for government and for first nations.

I have to say that it is also good policy for us as government, generally speaking, to seek to build relationships through negotiated agreements where the parties are willing to each bring something to the table. In some cases, what we ask first nations to bring to the table, in return for our decision to make available a particular opportunity or our decision to agree to a relationship on particular terms, is their agreement to participate constructively in government referral processes. Sometimes we ask for their agreement not to commence litigation against government during the period of the agreement because, after all, the agreement is intended in some way to represent or be evidence of a successful relationship. It's sort of hard to pretend that you're having a successful relationship with a first nation that is, as I say, suing you.

J. MacPhail: So how is Chief Stewart Phillip wrong? It seems to me he was right, given the Attorney General's explanation just now.

Hon. G. Plant: One thing I am not going to do in this debate is have a discussion that involves my commenting on the member's characterizations of a statement by a third party, including Chief Stewart Phillip.

J. MacPhail: That's not what I was asking the minister to do. I was asking him where Chief Phillip was wrong. So that's disappointing. I would say that, actually, the Attorney General's characterization of what qualities first nations have to bring to the table in order to get access to the economic measures fund are, as described by the Attorney General, exactly what Chief Phillip said.

I want to go back. My last question is on a point…. I wasn't clear on the lower mainland treaty advisory committee. I recall the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast asking the minister a question about the lower mainland treaty advisory committee fairly recently — well, last week — and the Attorney General said that he's not funding that. Is that correct?

Hon. G. Plant: The question the member is referring to was a written question on notice from a councillor who, I think, may have been a member of the lower mainland treaty advisory committee, and the question did relate to provincial funding of the lower mainland treaty advisory committee. As I indicated in my answer to that question, the province does not provide funding to the lower mainland treaty advisory committee.

We actually do not fund treaty advisory committees generally. What we are doing, though, is — on a case-by-case basis, where we think there is a need and also the prospect that the consultation is part of a discussion that might lead to a treaty — looking at situations where we might individually fund a consultation process involving local government and local government interests at a particular table. But we're doing that on a case-by-case basis. We're not providing sustaining funding to LMTAC.

J. MacPhail: Well, the lower mainland treaty advisory committee was funded. When did that funding stop?

Hon. G. Plant: Last year. For the benefit of the member, that was part of the restructuring. We made some decisions about where provincial dollars could most effectively be spent, particularly at a time when we are having to spend fewer dollars. We were trying to make sure that we got the best value for the dollars that we were spending.

While I personally have a lot of admiration for the tremendous contribution made by individuals across

British Columbia to the various advisory committees, including regional advisory committees and treaty advisory committees, it was also my observation that to some extent those structures had become self-sustaining bureaucracies in themselves and that it was probably a good time to take a step back and make sure that where we were providing funding to assist in consultation, we were doing it in a way that was most effective.

We had to make some tough choices. We thought that it was very, very important to continue to have a very effective and highly qualified team of negotiators in place. We also thought it was very important that we continue to fund first nations organizations, and in fact, negotiation support funding for first nations was protected. But we did have to make the decision to reduce funding in some areas, and accordingly we discontinued funding to LMTAC and to the other TACs and the RACs.

J. MacPhail: The minister said that there will be decisions made on a case-by-case basis. What's the anticipated decision time line for money flowing to the lower mainland treaty advisory committee?

Hon. G. Plant: I would have to say that I don't presently anticipate funding for the lower mainland treaty advisory committee, although I don't slam the door for all time on that. What we are doing is funding and assisting in a couple of parts of the province where there are some specific tables considering local government issues in the treaty context. One of those is in Prince George for the Lheidli-T'enneh table. Another of those is in Nanaimo. I think there's one in the Bulkley Valley.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I'll return when we're on to Attorney General issues.

J. Nuraney: Treaty negotiations have, over the years and in the past decades, been a real challenge to governments in the past, with virtually no results that we have seen of any kind. In the meantime, as we have seen, these communities have suffered enormous injustices to the point of their being driven to despondency and decay.

It was very encouraging this time around to notice in the throne speech that we heard at the beginning of the session that there is going to be recognition and reconciliation with the people of the first nations. This, to me, is a significant milestone that we are witnessing in the history of our province. From the earlier remarks of the Attorney General, it also seems that we are now in the process of virtually turning the page. We have, I believe, now expressed a genuine interest in arriving at resolutions and finding solutions to this challenge that has been our biggest problem for many, many years in the past. I would like the Attorney General, if I may, to elaborate a little bit more on what kind of recognition and how far we are able to go towards reconciliation.

Hon. G. Plant: Well, I appreciate the member's question. It is, frankly, a big topic. I think it might be useful to spend a minute or two identifying some of the work that has been done by members of this House on that issue over the last half dozen years.

In 1996, I guess, there was a select committee appointed to consider the Nisga'a agreement-in-principle. It travelled the province, and it came back with a report. One of the distinguishing features of that report — which was, I think, a signal contribution by the members of the then opposition who were members of that committee — was the recommendation that there be something in the nature of an apology or an expression of regret offered by the government of British Columbia as part of the treaty process, as part of building a new relationship. Members of my party, the member's party, were part of that discussion and really initiated that discussion half a dozen years ago.

Then about a year and a half ago or so, when members of this House were assigned the task as a special committee to go out and consult with British Columbians and to come forward with recommendations about what the referendum questions should be, they also came back with a recommendation that the government consider offering a statement of regret as a step towards building a new relationship with first nations. In a real sense, what we heard in the throne speech represents the continuation and the development of some ideas that have been talked about on our side of the House for a number of years.

I think, though, that the throne speech clearly represents a significant expansion of the commitment of government to try to pursue these ideas. These ideas have a number of components. I think they include a willingness to acknowledge that the history of our past relations is filled with occasions to be very, very regretful of and that we need to acknowledge some of that pain as a part of what we need to do to try to build a relationship going forward.

I don't think we can deny that there is little to be proud of in the history of aboriginal/non-aboriginal relations in British Columbia. I think there were some isolated instances where things were interesting and constructive — and I've studied the history a fair bit — but on the whole it's not a history that we should be proud of. In a real sense, what we heard in the throne speech was an acknowledgment of that fact and a commitment to try to move forward.

As we move forward, we're looking at reconciliation, but reconciliation is, as I said earlier, a process that involves more than one person. It may be interesting if there are two people in a dispute and one says, "I want to reconcile," but it doesn't become reconciliation until the other person becomes a party to that process.

The reason I make that point is because as we move forward as a government to look to develop and expand the idea of reconciliation, it's actually not something we're going to do by ourselves. It's something that is going to involve a discussion with first nations. I think it's going to involve discussions with first nations

at different levels. It has already involved some very introductory discussions with the First Nations Summit task group. They are, in effect, the spokespersons for those first nations in British Columbia that are in the treaty process. They don't negotiate on behalf of those first nations, but they're a very important conduit and spokesperson for the interests of first nations in the treaty process. This conversation is starting to happen a little bit at that level.

It's also happening at treaty tables around the province, where we're looking for ways to see what it is that we can do as government that acknowledges the past, that recognizes the presence of aboriginal people on the landscape of what is now British Columbia, that acknowledges aboriginal rights and title — in ways that I think can be done and can be done meaningfully without necessarily creating the spectre of endless litigation — and that can build the strong symbols of a new relationship.

I think there are some specific ideas that are worth looking at. I was part of what I guess was called a repatriation ceremony awhile back, where some human remains of ancestors of the Snuneymuxw first nation that had been taken from graves on Snuneymuxw land a long, long time ago were returned to the Snuneymuxw in a pretty emotional and important ceremony that, I think, is part of what we're talking about here.

Similarly, I think the Premier is on to something when he says it's time that we think about whether or not we could engage in a little bit of renaming. The landscape of British Columbia, as we know it, has place-names attached to it that are new, but the landscape of British Columbia as it has been known by the people who have lived here for hundreds or thousands of years before Europeans and others arrived also had place-names. I think we can do something important by recognizing those place-names.

How you do that in a way that ensures we all respect each other and the fact that there are now some new place-names that are just as important…. That may be a project that requires a bit of work, but I think it's a project we should commit ourselves to. I'm delighted that the Premier has said he is interested in pursuing that, and I certainly want to do what I can to help advance that project. If we were to know a little bit more about aboriginal place-names, we might, as non-aboriginal persons — speaking for myself — start to know a little bit more about the true history of our province in a way that I think could help build relations.

That's a pretty high-level overview. We are looking at these issues at specific treaty tables, and we are looking at them generally from the point of view of what we can do as government to try to build a new relationship that's founded on mutual respect. I think that's pretty important. I think it's important that I identify that this is not a one-way street. We can't impose reconciliation, but I also think it's important that I say that as we work towards developing these ideas, we're not looking to make this a totally one-way conversation in any way. I think the challenge we face is: how can we build a platform that everyone recognizes is based on mutual respect? That's a pretty important element of what we're doing here too.

J. Nuraney: Those words the Attorney General used about being a process of mutual respect, I think, really go to the very core of the process itself. I think, over the years, what had really happened was a deterioration of any trust or confidence in the parties at the table. The attempt now to be able to bring that effort — to say that there has to be a respect for each other — starts with the recognition of the identity of peoples and the fact that the Attorney General and the Premier are also, in the larger landscape, considering renaming places so that there can be cultural identities and restitution, in a way, of communities that have had enjoyment of those cultures in the past.

As we move along towards this treaty process, I think one of the things that was neglected over the years was that the concentration was entirely on the treaty negotiations, and very little attention was paid to the needs of the communities and the needs of the first nations at large. Examples would be in the matters of health, in the matters of education and in the matters of social needs of these communities, which were also ignored pending the treaty negotiations being completed. It now seems to me that there is a conscious effort by this government to separate these two issues. It seems to me that while treaty negotiations are important in themselves, there is also a need to address some of the challenges the first nations communities are facing. Could I have some kind of explanation from the Attorney General that it is a conscious decision of this government to address some of those needs pending the finality of the negotiating process?

Hon. G. Plant: I appreciate the question. In fact, that is our commitment. I think we were pretty clear about that in the New Era document. There were ways in which — over the past decade, at least, and perhaps longer — the treaty process became in some ways an excuse for not dealing with the pressing problems of the present in respect of health or education or economic development or a range of social and economic issues.

The Premier has been very active on this front. Among the things he has done is lead the way to encourage and to take leadership in a series of meetings that have happened every couple of months since the election — perhaps not quite that often — with first nations leaders, usually the First Nations Summit task group and other members of the summit, on a series of specific issues: education, health, child welfare and connectivity — you know, making sure that aboriginal British Columbia shares in the expansion of Internet access. We've talked about all of those issues and, I think, in some cases have built good processes for continuing the conversation about what we can do as a provincial government to help make a difference in those areas.

At the same time and connected with that, ministers have embarked upon a variety of initiatives which the member may want to pursue in the course of estimates debates with my colleagues in cabinet with respect to issues like education and child welfare, where we think there is something we can do as a province to do something differently that will help make a real difference in how services are received and delivered in aboriginal British Columbia and in improving outcomes from those services.

The member, I'm sure, has heard the Minister of Education express what I think she would not mind my calling a sense of frustration around the fact that aboriginal achievement in the public school system lags behind non-aboriginal achievement. That surely must be a priority for government to find ways to close that gap.

The Minister of Children and Family Development has embarked upon a very ambitious plan of organizing a way of delivering child-centred community services to first nations that actually involves the province of British Columbia in making decisions about those services — in government decisions around how those are to be made. I think that is recognized as being a very constructive and progressive step.

At the same time, on the economic development front I think we are doing what we can to try to make a difference. The economic measures fund is an example of that. The Minister of Forests' direct awards legislation represents an example of this House giving government a tool to try to make a real and meaningful difference in the lives of some aboriginal people now, rather than waiting until the treaty process is concluded.

I don't claim that these are initiatives are easy or that the path to success will be straightforward and simple. On each of these fronts there are challenges, and frankly, I think one of the challenges we all face as citizens talking about these issues is that eternal challenge of listening to the voices and trying to sort out the difference between those who are opposed and those who are not. It's pretty easy to hear the voices of those who are opposed. Those voices are usually accompanied by pretty strong adjectives. They're the kinds of adjectives and adverbs that get newspaper headlines, and fair enough.

While we talk about people who have some concerns, for example, about the economic measures fund — and I recognize there are some people who have some concerns about the economic measures fund — I think we owe it to ourselves to acknowledge some of the early indicators of success in the use of those dollars. The Tsay Keh Dene are parties to an agreement in forestry issues. There's a northern interior guide-outfitter-training interim economic measure. The Doig and Blueberry first nations in Treaty 8 country are partners in a project involving Northern Lights College. The Tsleil Waututh, formerly known as the Burrard Indian band, in the Vancouver area are participating in three different initiatives — an ecotrust initiative, an initiative around Canada Place marine….

I was at an announcement involving the possibility of developing independent power production in some fairly remote communities at the north end of Harrison Lake, where they depend on a generator for electricity. That is not completely unique in British Columbia. I'm sure the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine would love to stand up and tell me about all the communities in his constituency where the generator works some days and doesn't work every day. Really, to be an hour away from downtown Vancouver and still be depending on a generator as the source of your electricity seems to me to be something that calls out for a little bit of work.

We've helped fund some feasibility studies for the Douglas first nation. I could go on; the list is a long one. Time will tell whether these projects achieve the results we hope for them. I certainly expect that we'll be scrutinized for our successes and perhaps our lack of success, but this is what we're doing in our attempt to fulfil the commitment that the member spoke of in his question.

J. Nuraney: I think the remarks of the Attorney General are really echoing the spirit of this House in wanting to move on in these matters. I do vividly remember that mention was made at the provincial congress about some people living across from Harrison Lake who did not have electricity. I am very pleased to see that the Attorney General acted fairly quickly in that matter to ensure that those communities' needs were addressed, as we have moved along in other ministries, as well, addressing these needs.

I was also very encouraged to listen to the remarks at the last provincial congress, where Chief Ed John and Miles Richardson made some very positive comments as to the willingness and the real desire of this government to move along in this treaty process. As we have moved along to re-establishing the trust and the confidence, I would like to ask the Attorney General whether this is reflected around the tables — that this kind of confidence is now very evident.

Hon. G. Plant: Well, I suppose it was gratifying to hear the comments that were made at the last provincial congress. I think Miles Richardson was trying to send a message that we're on the verge of some successes, and I believe he's right. Maybe it's just my nature to be cautious about these things. We are but one party to each of these negotiations. We won't have agreement unless all three parties can find agreement on terms of an arrangement that work for all three parties.

We're very close at some tables, as I explained during the answers to the questions the Leader of the Opposition asked. I believe we're on the verge of a significant breakthrough, but I also recognize that to some

extent the question of whether we are is out of my hands. We're doing what we believe we should do to protect the provincial public interest and yet work towards agreement. If the first nations at the breakthrough tables and Canada come to the negotiations with the same commitment, then I think we will have some success. I look forward to the opportunity to stand here and report on that success at some future date.

D. MacKay: I look forward to asking some questions and to the responses from the minister dealing with treaty issues in the province. Obviously, the issue of treaties is important to myself and important to the people of the riding I represent. The questions I'm going to be putting to the minister are questions that I have asked of me as the MLA representing the riding, as well as issues that have come to my attention from reading through the service plan for the ministry. Because the service plan is kind of broken into two areas — the Attorney General and the Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations — my questions are going to be tied together in a few instances. I would ask for the minister's indulgence as he responds to my questions.

First of all, I'd like to go to page 8 of the service plan. On the bottom of page 8 it talks about the ministry vision, mission and values. On the very bottom it talks about the values and respect for the law. I guess my first question has to do with the respect for the law as it relates to civil disobedience. Because I'm talking about civil disobedience and native roadblocks that have had a financial impact on my riding, I'd like to ask the minister: could he explain how his ministry vision for respect for the law is being handled in cases of civil disobedience by way of roadblocks by the natives?

Hon. G. Plant: I thank the member for his question. The member is right. In a way, that question probably is a point at which the two sides of my ministerial responsibilities come together in a way that I think is constructive. When we do work at the treaty negotiations office, we're trying to find agreements that will build a strong relationship that is based on trust and will minimize the friction, the uncertainty, the lack of knowledge, the lack of information and the doubt that are often at the seed of the felt need to engage in civil disobedience or blockades or other action. But we're not always successful in achieving those objectives.

From my perspective as Attorney General, I think it's hugely important that we maintain a justice system and that we as government do what we have to do to support a justice system based on fundamental values of equality, based on a notion of our obligation to encourage respect for the law, but recognizing that disputes are often different, one from the other. Modern dispute resolution techniques require us to be sensitive to that reality, so we don't necessarily wave our hand in exactly the same way for every dispute. But I do think, as Attorney General, it's important that we send a strong message of the need for all British Columbians to respect the law.

D. MacKay: If I could just follow up on that then, because I didn't get an answer to my question. I'm going to go on to one more page here, and I'm hoping that the question will be responded to in something that I can understand.

On page 9, which is the ministry's goals and key performance measures in core business areas, we talk about: "Laws and justice services are administered fairly, equitably and efficiently to all British Columbians, while individual rights and judicial independence are protected." No. 2 says: "Citizens and communities in British Columbia receive protection from crime and its social and economic consequences."

Again, I would just take us back to some roadblocks that have taken place in the riding of Bulkley Valley–Stikine, which have had an impact. They've had an economic consequence.

The roadblocks were put up because the natives said they had not been consulted when, in fact, the cutting permit that had been authorized — and where the loggers were working — had been issued two years previously. The consultation process through the Ministry of Forests had been followed. The natives had been invited to the consultation process and chose not to attend. Then, after the cutting permit was issued and the loggers had gone back into the bush, the natives who had been invited decided they had not been consulted and set up roadblocks. As a result of that roadblock, there were some economic consequences.

The economic consequences, of course — I'm referring to a CBC story that came out on April 7, just two days ago…. It talks about a native blockade as pushing a contractor into bankruptcy. I'm just reading from the CBC monitoring report that I have here. It talks about David West, who has been logging in the Hazeltons for 25 years. These days the mills are closed, and work is hard to come by. But West did snag some work logging on Skeena Cellulose land, and he hired 77 men to help him — native loggers and non-native loggers. That job ended abruptly last month when a Gitxsan hereditary chief blocked the logging road. He said Skeena Cellulose failed to consult with the Gitxsan about logging on their traditional territory, and he says his community backs the blockade.

So when I look at the ministry's goals, key performance measures and core business areas, in the areas that I described about the economic consequences, I have to ask again…. The roadblock was put up, and it was there for weeks. It was there for weeks. When I read the core service business area, when it talks about the economic consequences, does this mean that the province has a financial consequence if we do not live up to the obligations as government and the ministry plan? So, again, I would like to ask how it is that we encourage respect for the law when we allow the illegal activity of setting up roadblocks on a B.C. Forest Service road to allow cutting on a permit that had been

issued by a previous government in a cutblock area. How does that encourage respect for the law, and how does that protect citizens and communities from crime? To me, a roadblock is a crime.

Do we owe the contractor if he's lost his equipment? Is there some financial obligation on the part of the province to compensate the logger because of illegal activity on that land? We don't encourage respect by allowing it to go on. I wonder if the minister could enlighten me on that.

Hon. G. Plant: I have to say at the beginning that I feel a certain hesitation in embarking upon a detailed examination of a matter that is an existing dispute which could result in litigation, if it has not already done so. In particular, among the reasons I am reluctant to engage in a debate about a specific issue is the fact that neither the member nor I have all the facts. I've been a lawyer, if you include law school, for going on 25 years. One of the things I've learned is that in almost every real dispute, there is at least one side to the story. Sometimes there are nine or ten. While I respect that the member has offered a summary of what some people think has happened here, I can't necessarily accept that it represents a complete statement of all the relevant facts that might go into that.

What the member has done is look at the service plan for the ministry and point out that among the goals of the Ministry of Attorney General and the Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiation are some goals about law and justice services and some goals about citizens and communities of British Columbia and how they should be protected from crime and its social and economic consequences. Those are, clearly, pretty important and profound goals and objectives for my ministry and for government. I suppose what I would say in general terms is that we work hard to achieve those goals on a day-by-day basis.

Let me take an example that is close to the circumstances the member relates. It's an example of a justice and safety issue and how we deal with it as government. It has to do with civil disobedience.

People are obviously entitled, as members of civil society and as citizens in the democratic society we call Canada, to express their opposition to what goes on around them. We treasure — we value enormously — the right to speak freely, the right to associate, the right to complain about what governments do and the right to complain about what our neighbours are doing, whether our neighbour is a forest company or the chief of a house in the Gitxsan nation. But we also value and treasure the need to ensure that dissent takes place within a climate of order, of peace, of security.

How we as government respond to that reality is in a number of ways. The police are fundamentally the people who stand on the front lines to keep us safe, and I as a minister have no policy or operational responsibility for what the police do. But what I can do as a part of the justice system, particularly in relation to my responsibilities over at the criminal justice branch, is make some policy about civil disobedience and how law authorities should respond to civil disobedience. And we do have a policy. It's a well-established policy, and it has been established as a result of an awful lot of work that governments, including predecessor governments to our government, have done over the last ten or 15 years to examine what works in terms of how you respond to civil disobedience. By work, I mean: to examine what tools are useful in bringing an end to the disobedience, achieving a resolution of the dispute and maintaining safety; to examine what the courts have said about what is permissible and what is not permissible; and to create a policy framework that is going to be helpful to us in responding to civil disobedience.

When I take the spirit of the member's question and I examine our existing policy around civil disobedience, there are a couple of things that I think have to be said. The first and most important thing that has to be said is that the civil disobedience policy of the criminal justice branch of the Ministry of Attorney General does not distinguish between people who happen to be the chiefs of Gitxsan houses or people who happen to be tree-fallers or people who happen to be chartered accountants or people who happen to be members of the Legislature. If you engage in a road blockade for whatever particular purpose in British Columbia, the policy is engaged whether you're an aboriginal or a non-aboriginal person.

It is also the case that our experience in the business of law enforcement over the last couple of decades has told us that it is sometimes appropriate to be cautious in your response to civil disobedience. The police, frankly, are the experts in determining how to respond operationally to particular incidents of civil disobedience. It matters, for example, whether the disobedience that may be a blockade is an obstruction of a public highway in British Columbia — not a Forest Service road, for the purpose of the member's question, but a public highway. If it's an obstruction of a public highway, that is a specific offence under the Criminal Code of Canada. Accordingly, the police, I think, generally will respond vigorously and pretty effectively to attempts to block public highways.

As the member well knows, there are a range of other kinds of roads in British Columbia. There are Forest Service roads. There are roads that take you to drill sites that are privately owned. There are backyard trails. There are hiking paths. There are riding trails. There are all kinds of byways and pathways, including some that are well travelled in British Columbia. In some cases, the obstruction of one of those roads may only affect a small handful of people, and it may affect them in their private interests rather than in their public interest. In those cases, the general view of government is that those whose private interest is being affected ought to take the initiative to protect their private interest. That is what we usually do as a matter of policy. We usually say to somebody whose private interest is being obstructed by the act of another private person — whatever the reason — that they should go to court and seek a remedy. It is not government's

responsibility to intervene in private disputes; it is government's responsibility to intervene when the larger public interest is at risk.

I know the application of that policy on a case-by-case basis causes some frustration to some people. I have spent a fair amount of time over the last 22 months — for that matter, for years before that — thinking about this policy and trying to make sure that it is respectful and responsive to people like the logger that the member refers to. I recognize that the member has some frustration about this particular incident. But the member will know that the decision made by some person to put a pickup truck across a forest road is not a decision that he made. It's not a decision that I made. It's not a decision that government made. The issue, of course, is, once that happens, what we as government do to respond to it.

We have in place a pretty comprehensive, thoughtful and generally pretty effective policy that ensures we strike a balance that is not polarized and that is reasonable and rational and effective in our response to those issues. That is a practical example of what we do in the Ministry of Attorney General. It's just one example of one of the things that we do in the Ministry of Attorney General to try to work towards achieving the first two goals on page 9 of the service plan.

D. MacKay: With respect, to the minister, the issue that I related was not a private issue. With respect, I suggest it's a public interest, because the cutting permit was authorized by the province. There was loss of revenue to the province through loss of stumpage that had been authorized by the province and, again, loss of revenue for the workers, who find themselves against the wall because they haven't worked for two years — through no fault of this government. With respect, I believe that was public interest. I do believe that when the public interest is affected, we have an obligation as government to respond to those issues.

The issue of the economic consequence obviously is not an issue in this particular case, then. Would that be correct?

Hon. G. Plant: First of all, let me say that I am certain that the people who are communicating with the member, assuming there's direct communication…. In any event, the people who want to get out and cut these trees down must surely be feeling a huge amount of frustration at what's happening, and I have to acknowledge that fact. It's frustrating to all of us, I think, sometimes when these things happen.

If the member was asking whether government generally indemnifies private parties in respect of the economic consequences of road blockades initiated by others, the answer is that government generally does not provide that indemnification.

Again to your service plan on page 10, I think you did respond to this. You mention on goal No. 4 — and I realize that we're not into the…. I'm looking at your 2002-03 goal No. 4, which was to reach a number of agreements with natives. We were looking at five to eight, and I believe the response was earlier, to the opposition member, that we seem to be getting close to that number of agreements-in-principle.

Hon. G. Plant: The service plan commitment in 2002-03 was a commitment…. The plan was to achieve between three and four significant treaty-related agreements and between two and four significant agreements focusing on economic priorities.

I think I'd better be clear when I say that an agreement-in-principle is certainly a significant treaty-related agreement, but it's not the only thing that might constitute a significant treaty-related agreement. For example, the land protection measure that was negotiated with the Yale first nation and implemented last summer is, in my view, a significant agreement, and it is certainly treaty-related, because it is an agreement negotiated in the context of our treaty negotiations with the Yale first nation. We don't have an agreement-in-principle with the Yale first nation, but we do have something that I think can fairly be called a significant treaty-related agreement.

With that sort of clarification in mind, we think we did achieve our service plan goals in '02-03 if you include agreements like that. With respect to what lies ahead of us, we are in the ratification stage of examining a proposed AIP in Nanaimo. The negotiators have put together what they think are the elements of a deal, and they have submitted a document to the first nation, to Canada and to British Columbia. We are, all of us, looking at that document now and deciding whether it's a document that each of the parties can support. Over the course of the next two, three or four months I hope we'll have resolution on that.

We are at varying stages of progress, but good progress, in terms of closeness to agreement at five other tables which I identified in the answers to the questions from the opposition leader. We're hopeful that we can achieve some success at some of those five tables in the current fiscal year, but as I said repeatedly, I can't make that commitment because in this game it takes three to tango. We know we're close at a couple of tables, and we know we're able to make good progress at a few more.

Again, I'll take you to page 24 of the service plan, dealing with the objectives. On the bottom of page 24 we say "implement the Nisga'a final agreement adjustment project." I wonder if the minister could tell me what is involved in the implementation agreement that's highlighted there on page 24.

Hon. G. Plant: The Nisga'a final agreement adjustment project is created as a result of the agreement

with Canada that led to funding the Nisga'a final agreement in which Canada has provided some dollars to British Columbia — I think it's $3 million — to provide what's described as extraordinary adjustment assistance to communities and individuals adversely impacted by treaty settlements — in this case the Nisga'a final agreement. So British Columbia has received $3 million from Canada to support this thing called the Nisga'a final agreement adjustment project.

The primary goal of the project is to provide adjustment assistance to eligible northwest B.C.–located individual workers, business owners and communities adversely impacted by the NFA but — and here's the important "but" — in circumstances where those folks are ineligible to receive assistance from any other government program — federal, provincial or Nisga'a Lisims government program.

I am told that there are over 20 existing adjustment programs in the Terrace and Prince Rupert area. There is a local advisory committee that brings together local government, labour, chamber of commerce people in the Terrace-Nass area to provide advice about these things. We have, apparently, an agent in Terrace that is contracted to administer the project, and the information I have is that the program became operational in October 2001. Since that time, 12 individuals have made inquiries, and two individuals have applied and been accepted into the program. The city of Prince Rupert has been making inquiries and requests of government in respect to the impact of the NFA on the city and some issues related to the city, and that work continues. But that's the summary of what this project is about.

D. MacKay: Is this a one-time funding project? Is this the end of it from the federal government to the province to compensate those that were displaced or financially harmed by the Nisga'a treaty?

D. MacKay: If I could ask…. There were individual private property owners who were taken into the Nisga'a core lands, who have no vote in the Nisga'a Lisims government. Are these individuals eligible for funding from this program?

Hon. G. Plant: They would have to demonstrate that they meet the criteria that I described earlier.

I want to be clear about the answer I gave a minute ago. The member will know that there are also some issues around the possibility of compensation claims for interference with the existing forest licences and fish, and those issues have been discussed, maybe even negotiated. If a province has an obligation to compensate in respect of those issues, that is outside the scope of the $3 million adjustment project funding.

D. MacKay: Before I get into the supplement to the estimates, I have a few questions in there. Before I leave the Hazelton issue that I had discussed previously with the minister, I'm going to read a letter that I have here from Jack Sebastian, who is from Hazelton, and it relates to the Tysoe decision that came down on December 10, 2002, as it relates to the Gitxsan argument about the transfer of the licence to SCI.

I'm just going to read a part of it and ask the minister to comment on it. It will hopefully explain to the minister the frustration that is felt by the non-aboriginals with the exercise of treaty negotiation in my part of the province. I'll read this. This is, as I said, from Jack Sebastian, who was the Suskwa manager from Hazelton, and it's the Suskwa manager's report for February 1 to March 31. I should mention that this letter was delivered to contractors and people around the Hazelton area.

"Firstly, it's been a very tough battle trying to educate our chiefs and membership about our very big win on December 10, 2002."

I bring that up at this time just to expand on the frustration felt by people in the Hazelton area who want to work. I do believe the Gitxsan are at the treaty table now, and this frustration level is starting to put a wedge between the aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities in my part of the riding.

The Tysoe decision, which came down — and I'm sure the minister is much better able to respond to it than I am — on December 10, has been interpreted a certain way by some of the Gitxsan people. The comments I have just read out to the minister…. I wonder if he could enlighten me on the validity of the interpretation that has been assumed by the author of that letter — which, by the way, is three pages long and goes on into great detail. I wonder if the minister would care to respond as to the validity of their view.

Hon. G. Plant: I can't help but begin by referring back to my experience as a trial lawyer and telling the member, who I know had some experience in policing — perhaps a slightly different context — that I remember lots of cases I was involved in that went to trial, where both parties left the courtroom thinking they'd won, or both parties thought they'd lost, or the parties had wildly different interpretations of the significance of what a judge had said. That's not that unusual. I think, as I heard what the member read, it does not

represent what we believe is the state of the law with respect to government's rights and obligations and aboriginal rights and obligations in relation to land use issues.

The Crown continues to be the owner of the resources of British Columbia. The Crown continues to have the power to regulate and to make dispositions with respect to those resources. The Crown's rights are subject to some important obligations. In the circumstances that the courts have talked about — which often have to do with situations where there is a strong likelihood that there is aboriginal title — government has an obligation to be pretty careful to identify or consult, once identified, and perhaps even accommodate aboriginal interests, aboriginal rights and aboriginal title.

We continue to work on developing a framework within which we can discharge those general obligations on a case-by-case basis in a way that will help economic development rather than hinder it. It sounds like — at least with respect to the author of the letter the member refers to and the government — there is a bit of a gap in our understanding of what was meant in the decision with respect to the SCI transfer.

D. MacKay: Thank you for that response. What I'd like to do now is go to the Supplement to the Estimates on page 20. I'm looking at vote 12. I notice that the treaty settlement and implementation costs would indicate that we're going to spend $20.349 million of public money on that. I wonder if the minister could tell me: is the Nisga'a Highway completion project included in that amount of money?

D. MacKay: Given that response and the fact the Ministry of Transportation website reveals that the project will cost less than $52 million and is due for completion by the end of 2005, I wonder if the minister could explain why, if that is a treaty-related cost, it does not show up in the vote 12 estimate.

Hon. G. Plant: The answer to the member's question is that the initiative is, in fact, not formally part of the treaty, the Nisga'a final agreement implementation. It was a separately negotiated commitment at the time of the conclusion of the Nisga'a final agreement and is a commitment that rests with the Ministry of Transportation.

D. MacKay: I take it from the response, then, that the Nisga'a Highway completion project is outside the Nisga'a treaty.

Hon. G. Plant: Yes. And let me be clear. By "treaty" in this context, I'm talking about the Nisga'a final agreement, and the highway project is not part of the treaty.

D. MacKay: Again, I wonder if the minister could tell me what the ongoing costs are for the Nisga'a treaty. What does it cost the province to service it, and what obligations do we have financially to that final Nisga'a treaty?

Hon. G. Plant: The budget appropriation for '02-03 for Nisga'a settlement and implementation costs is $2.67 million. The budget appropriation for '03-04 is $2.45 million, and for the two years after that it's $2.58 million and $2.24 million. If the member wants it down to the last dollar, I'd be happy to give him that. What it represents, I am informed, is the amortized value of the province's financial commitments under the Nisga'a final agreement. To be completely accurate, when I say financial commitments, what I mean is commitments that are required to be recorded as financial commitments according to the accounting practices of the government of British Columbia. So it may not represent cash in the sense that it would be understood by an ordinary, non-accountant kind of person. What it is, is the budget number for Nisga'a settlement and implementation costs.

D. MacKay: As a non-accountant person that we just related to, I'm a bit confused about it. The $2.67 million — and it was roughly $2.5 million for years down the road…. Does that come to an end someplace down the road, or is it ongoing — an annualized cost?

Hon. G. Plant: It is the amortized costs. As I said earlier, the period of amortization is 15 years, so 15 years after the implementation date it will come to an end.

D. MacKay: Are there any costs related to the Nisga'a final agreement that are not budgeted for? I believe the minister said that there could be costs that don't show up in the ledgers.

D. MacKay: All right. I'd just like to look at the economic measures again under vote 12, the $10 million. Could the minister tell me: are the Nisga'a people entitled to apply for some of that funding?

Hon. G. Plant: I think that within the letter of the framework we have established for economic measures funding in British Columbia, the Nisga'a would technically be eligible. I think there is a provision in the final agreement that says the Nisga'a continue to be as eligible for program funding in economic areas as all other Canadians are. I'm not sure exactly what the language is.

I have to also say this. The economic measures fund is a fund that we as government use strategically to achieve some important objectives. I think it's probably

unlikely that the Nisga'a would be recipients of an economic measures fund proposal or agreement, largely because we have done quite a bit to try to help create the conditions for economic development in the Nass Valley, and we have important work to do in other parts of British Columbia that I think will probably engage all of the economic measures fund.

D. MacKay: Well, that's exactly why I asked the question, given the fact that we have signed a final treaty with the Nisga'a giving them economic stability, a chance to be self-sufficient. I had to ask the question because if we allow Nisga'a to access that $10 million economic fund, it's quite unfair, given the fact that we have no other treaties signed. I would have thought the money would have been earmarked for those people outside the treaty process and for which we don't have a treaty.

I should follow up on that. You've told me what it's used for. Who is eligible? I'd like an answer to who is eligible and how it is distributed. What qualifications have to be met before the money is distributed?

Hon. G. Plant: Well, we don't have any hard and fast predefinitions of groups. It's not limited, for example, to Indian Act bands; it's not limited per se to first nations that are parties to treaty negotiations. We're relatively flexible about how we could constitute a group or a group could be constituted for the purpose of providing funding within the meaning of the economic measures fund. In that respect, there's a certain amount of flexibility. But we're talking about providing funds to first nations, and the…. I think I probably lost the essence of the rest of the member's question.

In essence, we are trying to be strategic. We have identified a number of areas, sectors of the economy, where we think the fit between this kind of fund and what it can do to create real opportunity is good — like oil and gas, aquaculture, tourism, the Olympics bid, forestry — and there's a certain amount of looking around the landscape for real and meaningful opportunities to help stimulate economic development through a contribution of funds in the form of an economic measures agreement.

We are looking at opportunities to partner with Canada, so there are some of these agreements and projects where in one way or another Canada has come to the table with dollars. We are looking for opportunities to partner with the private sector. There are also situations where some of these projects actually engage commitments by private sector individuals. We're looking for opportunities for others to contribute.

For example, last week I announced a commitment of $530,000 to a three-year economic measures fund to the Akoya to help them develop a pinto abalone land-based aquaculture facility. As part of that project, there's training involved in how to do abalone aquaculture, and Malaspina College is at…. I don't think they're providing funding, but we are funding to assist in making sure they can provide the training.

So, as I said, this is a corporate fund. We are looking around the landscape of British Columbia for opportunities to achieve strategic objectives. This is not, by the way, a subsidy. It's not a grant program where we force-feed job creation. It is a situation where we try to help by funding feasibility studies or by funding training or by funding those sorts of things where the first nation can go and partner with other people and create some real opportunity for employment.

D. MacKay: I just have a couple more questions, and I'll be finished. Again, I've got to go back to the Nisga'a treaty because it's the only treaty we've got in the province, and we're getting close to one at Nanaimo. I always have a bit of a problem pronouncing the name of the native group in Nanaimo.

Do we put a value on land? With the one we're getting close to signing an agreement-in-principle with, I believe we're looking at roughly 5,000 hectares. We're going to increase the size of the existing land base to about 5,000 — give or take some. What is the population of the group in the Nanaimo area, and how many acres per person does that equate to?

Hon. G. Plant: Well, I can't answer the last part of the question. I believe there are about 1,300 members of the Snuneymuxw first nation. To the extent that the land there is largely already owned in fee simple, it clearly has a value determined by whatever its market value is.

The only other thing I feel obliged to put on the record, as it were, is that while we may be close to an agreement-in-principle in Nanaimo, it seems to be necessary to do an awful lot of work to get to the final agreement, and that work may take one or two years. So we still have a lot of work to do in Nanaimo before we could ever say we've got a final agreement.

D. MacKay: Given the comparison between Nisga'a and the Nanaimo agreement-in-principle that we're getting close to, I have to assume, then, that the land value in the Nanaimo area per acre is valued at a great deal more than what it was in Nisga'a, given the size of the land mass that was given to Nisga'a.

Do we look at the lost revenues from forestry in the case of Nisga'a and the loss of the tax base from the Nanaimo area? Do we compensate for that somehow?

Hon. G. Plant: The member's question included a reference to lost revenues from forestry, for example, if forest lands that are Crown lands become treaty settlement lands. And the question was: are they accounted for? The answer is: they are cost-shared with Canada. So, in effect, they are a credit that British Columbia brings to the table.

D. MacKay: Two more questions. Is there someplace in the treaty office that keeps track of the provincial costs for treaties and to take care of our native population? I noticed you talked earlier about the Min-

ister of Education targeting improving the quality of education for natives to make sure that we get a higher graduation rate, and we talked about the family and children's ministry providing extra funding to help underprivileged children. Now, is there someplace in the treaty negotiations office that gives us an annualized cost — what it costs the province and the taxpayers?

Hon. G. Plant: I'm not sure this is going to be the answer the member wants. First of all, the Treasury Board is pretty disciplined in making sure that the government keeps track of the money that we're spending, and, of course, it's all accounted for. But in terms of the challenge of trying to figure out globally what it is that the government of British Columbia contributes financially to the provision of services and other benefits to first nations, one of the challenges — and it's a pretty important one — is that in fact, in many cases, services are provided to people in British Columbia without identifying whether they are first nation or not. They're just provided because the kid shows up at school or mom shows up at the hospital. We don't, across government, keep track of the numbers in the way that would allow me to answer the question as helpfully as the member was hoping I could.

D. MacKay: My final question to the minister. Again going back to the Supplement to the Estimates, looking at vote 12 and vote 13 on page 20. I notice that we spend $51 million on the Supreme Court and provincial courts. That's the operating expenses. We spend $53 million on treaty negotiations. Is it safe for me to make the assumption that we actually spend more on treaty negotiations than we do in our courtrooms in the province?

Hon. G. Plant: Well, I'm not sure I could begin to answer that question in all its ramifications. Let me just say this. When the member looks at the reference to the $53 million appropriation, more or less, for the treaty negotiations office in '02-03, a significant part of that, which is the $20 million for treaty settlement and implementation costs, really represents only an accounting entry. It represents, I think, the anticipation that there would be about $15 million in stumpage payable under the terms of the agreement with the McLeod Lake Indian band and that those dollars were not actually spent. That's one side of the equation.

I think that we spend far, far more on supplying and supporting court services in British Columbia. The item that the member refers to, I think, was exclusive of the court services branch, which has a huge budget for making sure that there are courthouses fully staffed and heated and well-lit across the province. That turns out to be a much, much bigger number than the amount we spend to keep this very efficient, very effective, very focused and — I believe soon to be — very successful treaty negotiations office operating in British Columbia.

D. MacKay: I would like to thank the minister for his responses. At this time I'd like to let you know that I'm finished with the questions I have. I have other questions from the other aspect of your ministry. If there are no more questions, perhaps you'd like to change staff or let some of the staff go. Thank you very much.

T. Christensen: I know there are a number of members that do have questions in respect of other aspects of the Attorney General's ministry. Perhaps a short recess, a five-minute recess, would be in order so that he can have some staff come in, and then we can start on that part of the ministry.

Hon. G. Plant: I understand that we're now going to be moving to that portion of the estimates debate which concerns the budget of the Ministry of Attorney General, and there's been a bit of a change in the cast of characters. I'd just like to introduce, on my right, the acting Deputy Attorney General, Robert Lapper. On my left is the assistant deputy minister of justice services, Jerry McHale. Behind me is Mr. Crone, and to his right is the director of resource analysis and planning, Barb Kaiway.

I've got a few things I'd like to say as part of the introduction to this phase of the estimates. We're now completing the second year of our three-year plan to reform the justice system in British Columbia, ensuring that it meets the needs of all British Columbians and remains affordable, accessible and sustainable.

We've done a lot of work in the last year. We've put in place new human rights legislation and a new model for protecting human rights in British Columbia. Consistent with our commitment to improve access to justice services, to put people in need who require justice services at the top of the list and to strengthen public confidence in the justice system, we undertook a significant public review of our human rights machinery in British Columbia.

Having discovered that the structure was broken, we created a new structure, a new model — the first of its kind in Canada — that will provide direct access to a single body which is charged with the responsibility and the ability to handle human rights complaints in cases from start to finish, while eliminating overlap and duplication. The tribunal is accessible, it's efficient, and it will focus on mediation and resolution of human rights disputes. As members will know, because these matters have just been recently announced, the Community Legal Assistance Society will provide legal advice and assistance through a clinic to human rights

complainants and respondents who qualify for publicly funded help to conduct their cases.

Another project that has been underway over the last year has been the civil liability review. In April of 2002 we posted a discussion paper on civil liability issues on the Attorney General website. We began a public discussion about these issues some time before that. We invited comments and responses, and we received them. As of February 21 — I guess about six weeks ago or so — we posted a summary of the input and also the feedback on the Attorney General website. Government has spent some time and continues to spend some time studying the responses and deciding what, if any, action we will take. This project, I think, is consistent with our broad commitment to fairness and equality in the law as well as in the justice system more broadly speaking.

In particular, I've had a longstanding commitment to private law reform, and we have service plan goals to review the law of civil liability. This project represents the implementation of that goal. I think it's important that we ensure that our law keeps pace with current social and economic conditions, and it's important to ensure that our law does so in a way which is fair and balanced. The law that we're talking about, the private law of liability, has to have elements of fairness. It has to have elements of predictability and certainty and practicality if it is to work, if it is to serve the public interest. The civil liability review was about asking the question whether or not, in some important respects, the civil liability laws in British Columbia do in fact meet those goals here and now, today.

We've also had a productive year in the area of restructuring the delivery of court services. We've worked hard over the last year, and we will continue to work with local communities and partners in the delivery of justice services to find efficient and cost-effective ways of delivering court services.

I'm happy to have the opportunity to remind members of some of the steps along that path over the last year. In April of 2002 we announced the establishment of circuit court in 100 Mile House. In May of 2002 I attended the opening of a new court complex in Chilliwack. Circuit courts were announced in Creston, Chetwynd and Chase in July, in Vanderhoof in October and in Castlegar in December. Then in February circuit courts were announced for Grand Forks, Houston, Revelstoke, Fernie, Kitimat and Lillooet. I believe it's today that we have been able to announce that we have achieved an agreement which will allow us to deliver circuit court services in Invermere.

A month ago, in March, I attended the opening of the Richmond courthouse, which for the first time consolidates court services that used to be delivered in a number of different buildings in Richmond into one building that brings youth, family and adult court facilities under one roof. It also provides space for the regional RCMP headquarters, as well as office space for Crown court services, community corrections and family justice services. Also, in February I was able to attend the opening of a new courthouse and justice facility in Sechelt, which I think will maintain access to justice on the Sunshine Coast, help reduce policing costs and also provide a more efficient way of delivering court registry and staff needs to the Sunshine Coast.

I want to express my thanks to all the city governments across the province that have worked hard to help us meet these objectives and also to my colleagues in the Legislature, who have been, may I say, vocal and effective spokespeople for the interests of their constituents and their communities. We tried hard to listen, and I think we've had some success in responding to the needs that have been identified.

I also want to say something about the Justice Review Task Force. Essentially, it is a formalized process for consulting with the legal profession, with the judiciary and with the public about issues of justice system reform. It's got some representatives on it from the judiciary, the Canadian Bar Association, the Law Society and my ministry. The members of the task force are looking for and identifying particular projects that can help meet the collective and shared goal of improving access to justice in a cost-effective and innovative way.

We've talked here about traffic dispute reform from time to time. In May of 2002 we announced a reform of the traffic fine dispute process. That is also, I think, a helpful step along the road of ensuring that the court system and justice services broadly are accessible and that they do only the work which is really, truly needed of them. We are continuing to move forward on that reform.

We are also continuing to move forward on reforms to the way in which bylaw disputes are adjudicated. That is going to be a useful way of relieving some of the burden on the traditional court system and allowing local governments some more effective tools for enforcing bylaws and adjudicating bylaw disputes when they arise.

We've been at work examining criminal justice policy to make sure that it's up to date, that it is not unnecessarily bureaucratic or burdensome and also that it is responsive to our experience in administering criminal justice policy. One of the areas where there has been a considerable amount of work done is the area of spousal assault, and that work continues.

We've continued our work in administrative justice reform. That has been a very successful undertaking to date, but it continues.

Members, of course, are aware that as Attorney General, I have specific responsibilities in the area of electoral reform. We are well on the way to implementing our new-era commitment to appoint a citizens' assembly. That work continues.

There are some other things that are a part of the record of the last year: a new office for children and youth, established last September, which I think will be a more effective and more streamlined way of protecting children who are vulnerable than the former system, which was full of duplication and overlap.

The members will also know that as part of my interest in law reform generally, we made some

changes to trustee investment powers last year. I guess earlier this week I introduced two bills that I hope will reform court procedure and the substantive law in the areas of enforcement of judgments from other jurisdictions in Canada and the sometimes difficult questions of when the superior court of British Columbia should take jurisdiction over lawsuits that have a foreign element to them.

We've continued to work to implement the lobbyists registry. I recognize that this initiative has had one or two growing pains, but I think we're on the way to making that do the job it should do — that is, providing a measure of transparency to citizens so they know what it is, who it is that's doing business with government — but not seek to oppressively overregulate the profession of lobbying. I think we've struck the right balance there. If members have questions about that…. I know I've had a discussion with some members and some folks in the public about that, and if people have ideas for how we can make a good thing better, I'm always open to them.

There is much more to be done. It would be nice — to go back to where I started from — to say that the project of reforming the justice system was actually only a three-year project. We have a three-year plan, but the project is a longer-term project. I think we're well on the way, but goodness knows there is a lot more that needs to be done. There are great challenges in responsibly building public awareness about how our system of justice works, the ways in which it is successful and the ways in which it is less successful. Having built that public awareness, there are challenges associated with identifying ways in which we can improve the justice system while remaining true to its essential values.

In an era where dollars are limited, I think that is an additional challenge, but I welcome it. I have said from the outset that sometimes the first thing you should do when times are tough is see if you can find opportunity amid the challenge. That is what I have tried to do for the last 22 months. I think we have made some good progress on that front, but I recognize there's more to be done. I hope we'll have a chance to explore some of those issues in the course of this estimates debate.

Thank you for the opportunity to make those introductory remarks. I look forward to members' questions.

L. Mayencourt: You started off speaking a little bit about the Human Rights Tribunal and the new model you've created in that forum. I wonder if you could spend a few minutes just to sort of explain how that system is going to work for someone that enters the system with a human rights complaint.

Hon. G. Plant: The idea of a direct access model is fairly straightforward. I recognize that some people may not necessarily know the difference between what's within provincial jurisdiction and federal jurisdiction, but if people believe they have been the victim of discrimination in respect of the provision of accommodation or a service or a facility or in some other way, they will contact the Human Rights Tribunal, and they will begin a process that may result in getting some information that will help them answer the question of whether there is a problem, whether they're in the right place, whether there's some other place they should go to.

If indeed they have identified something that represents a claim of an actual incident of discrimination, they will then follow the process for laying a complaint according to the rules the tribunal has established. That will, for many people, involve getting help from the clinic that will identify what the issues are. I hope that early in these complaints — for some of them, at any rate — the people on the tribunal will seize opportunities to achieve some resolution of the issues without necessarily subjecting the parties to a full-scale traditional adjudication.

Some complaints will end up being processed in a way that will look a lot like a dispute under the old model, or a dispute in court. You may end up in a hearing in front of an adjudicator, where there will be evidence called and submissions made, and a decision will have to be made. But for most cases, I believe that early intervention with the right tools, the right help and the right assistance will achieve resolution of those claims and complaints that is satisfactory to the complainant and may also actually be satisfactory to the respondent in a way that builds a stronger community over the long term.

L. Mayencourt: I wonder if the Attorney General could speak a little bit to the issue of education. Under the former model, there was a Human Rights Commission that handled the education, informing the public about human rights law and that type of thing. How is that going to be handled under this new model? Are we going to have an education program? Who's going to run it? How much are we going to spend on it?

Hon. G. Plant: Let me begin the answer to the question. Noting the hour, we might not quite get to the end of it.

The ministry now has, for the first time, some statutory responsibility for education in relation to human rights issues. In simple terms, although this was the subject of some discussion during the debate on the bill last year, I think there are going to be three different players at work here.

The tribunal is going to have a responsibility for ensuring that its processes, its rules and its procedures are made public and made well-known to as broad an audience as possible. Government has a responsibility to assist in that, so we're going to make sure that people know about the code. We're going to give government agents brochures and tools that they can use. I hope to be in a position soon to give MLAs information that they can have available in their constituency offices. So it goes, to ensure that everybody knows about

the existence of the code and the existence of the right to a machinery for enforcing complaints.

The clinic will also have a responsibility to participate in that discussion, but the clinic will also be doing some training that will assist individuals, corporations, non-profits and others in understanding their obligations and, by understanding them, hopefully creating preventative tools. That's part of the education responsibility.

In addition, over time there are some ways in which, as minister, I or my successors might do more to deal with specific issues that might arise where we need to do some research or there needs to be some education. As a first priority, we have decided that we're going to focus on trying to educate government. In many ways government does a good job of respecting the obligation not to discriminate, but there is room for improvement, and we're going to be looking for that. That's a priority in the next little while.

The member did ask a question about dollars, which I'm not able to answer, but will be shortly, though perhaps not in the next 30 seconds.

J. MacPhail: I want to explore my discussions I had with the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries yesterday. I want to read into the record what the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries….

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. Do I get that wrong all the time? Could you just repeat…? What is it — Agriculture…?

…my estimates with the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries yesterday in terms of the special prosecutor's investigation and report into his circumstances, during which the minister was — according to his own website now — on hiatus.

Here's the first question I asked the minister. And just so I make it relevant for the Attorney General…. Well, the Attorney General will see how this is relevant. Question from me: "Could the minister tell this House what his role was in advocating whether to pursue or not pursue Water, Land and Air Protection's investigation?" Answer from the Minister of Fisheries: "This matter was fully investigated by the special prosecutor, and that ends the matter. It was all reviewed by that prosecutor."

Answer from the minister: "Again, I would refer the member to the Attorney General. She may not like the ministry's answer, but it's something that I can't answer and I can't provide."

Another question from me: "Did this minister know that Stolt wanted the investigation stopped? How did he know that?" Answer from the Minister of Fisheries: "Again, that matter was part of the review done by the special prosecutor, and I will refer the member to my earlier answer."

Answer from the Minister of Fisheries: "Again, as set out in the compliance and enforcement agreement, I can assure the member that all escapes and all reports of escapes are investigated by the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries."

I go on, Mr. Chair. Actually, I've got several more, but I'll try to speed it up. Another question from me to the Minister of Fisheries: "Does the minister often have conversations with major fish farm operators that are under investigation or potentially under investigation? What system is in place for the minister to know about potential investigations and guide his behaviour accordingly?"

Answer from the Minister of Fisheries: "My conduct with respect to a fish farm file is fully investigated. I want to simply say that the member has her options to deal with the Attorney General on that. Other than that, I can assure the member that the normal procedures of staff doing an investigation, writing a report to Crown counsel, if they consider it necessary — all of those procedures — are in place."

Mr. Chair, I will also say that the Minister of Fisheries refused to answer specific questions about a meeting he had with the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection and the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management that they all had with the vice-president of Stolt, where Mr. Blackburn left feeling "buoyed," as the tone of the meeting indicated a strong willingness on everyone's part to repair and rebuild troubled relationships. And he referred me to the Attorney General on that.

Let me just read my final one on this. I'll just read my final question, although there are many more in between, but I think the Attorney General gets the point. My question to the Minister of Fisheries: "My last question before we rise for lunch is…. The minister said he made a mistake. Well, what was it that he didn't understand about his oath of confidentiality that he took as a minister that he didn't understand? What was it that he didn't understand about that oath of confidentiality?"

Answer from the minister: "As I acknowledged publicly, I made a mistake in the handling of a document on this file. The matter has been fully investigated by the special prosecutor." And here's the key, Mr. Chair. Here's what the Minister of Fisheries says to me: "The results of that investigation are available to the member from the Attorney General's ministry." And, again, I responded: "No, they're not. The government is keeping the documents and the report secret. They're not available. Through you, Mr. Chair, to the minister: stop saying they are, or table the report."

So I am left in a huge quandary here. I tried in the estimates — really the only avenue available for members of this House to explore the conduct of ministers as it relates to their responsibilities…. The Minister of Fisheries himself admitted that he's responsible for compliance and enforcement. My questions were around his role in ensuring compliance and enforcement. All that minister did was refer me to the special prosecutor's report and to the Attorney General.

However, I have asked the Attorney General in question period whether he's going to release that report, and he says no. What advice does the Attorney General now give me?

Hon. G. Plant: Well, the technical answer to the question is that I think by operation of law, I have one client. It's the government; it's not the opposition member. So I'm not certain that I can answer a question which was, in effect, a request for advice. I wonder if the member has another question on which I might be equally unhelpful, but I might be able to give it a better try.

I, in my role as an MLA of this House but an MLA who is in a unique position — not part of the government — was exploring matters with the Minister of Fisheries around his role in ensuring enforcement and compliance. Many of my questions involved current circumstances, but many of my questions also involved seeking whether there had been any changed circumstances arising out of the special prosecutor's report. The Minister of Fisheries, in really not answering my questions on many occasions — and I think the record will speak for itself — simply referred me to the special prosecutor's report and that I should read it and that I should go to the Attorney General for those reports.

I am left in a quandary, because that report is not going to be made public, or maybe…. Is the Attorney General going to make public the special prosecutor's report as it relates to the investigation into Stolt Sea Farms?

Hon. G. Plant: I thank the member for that question. I'm going to get there, but I'm going to take a bit of a road to get there — maybe not that long a road. I think it's important to set some of what has happened in a context that is relevant from the perspective of the member's interest in the subject.

The institution of special prosecutor is an important part of the system of criminal justice in British Columbia, and as the member knows, it is part of a criminal justice system which involves a certain measure of institutional independence between politics and the prosecutorial function.

The institutional independence is manifested not only by the existence of a separate branch called the criminal justice branch, headed by the Assistant Deputy Attorney General — who happens to now have joined us for the purpose of assisting me with this debate — but is also a separation of institutions that is reflected in statute in the Crown Counsel Act and is pretty important to protecting the integrity of the justice system, particularly around the prosecutorial function and most especially in relation to the investigation into allegations of criminal wrongdoing in circumstances where the matter is of extremely high profile, which is frequently the case where the allegation relates to the conduct of a minister of the Crown.

The usual practice in respect of these things involves a moment in time at which, frequently at the request of the police who are investigating such a matter, there will be a request made to the Assistant Deputy Attorney General, the head of the Crown's criminal justice branch, for the appointment of a special prosecutor. The appointment, if made, is — I want to say almost invariably — an appointment made not by the Attorney General, not by me, but by the head of the criminal justice branch. The report of the prosecutor appointed to assist the police or provide a recommendation — or both, depending on the terms of reference — is a report to the Assistant Deputy Attorney General — again, not a report actually to me. I think it's important that I emphasize that separation, because it is, in fact, the case that I have not seen the report of the special prosecutor in this matter. What I have seen is the same document that the member will have seen, which is the information bulletin or news release or whatever it was that was issued by the criminal justice branch announcing the outcome of the investigation.

The member asks whether I intend to make the report public. The reason why I offered the introductory explanation is to make clear that in a very real sense, the report is not mine to release. However, I think it would be the usual case that the Assistant Deputy Attorney General would consult with the Deputy Attorney General and, probably, also with the Attorney General around such matters as to whether or not a particular report of a particular special prosecutor would be released. So I am in some way involved in

the process, but I am not the sole decision-maker in the way that is implied by the member's question.

We went back through the records to try to ascertain what the experience has been with respect to the release of special prosecutor reports, and there are very, very, very few occasions over the last decade where special prosecutor reports have been made public. To be honest, over the last day I've been reminded of the fact that there was considerable discussion about all elements of this process in the report that Stephen Owen did in the early 1990s called Discretion to Prosecute Inquiry, which arose out of an attempted private prosecution brought by a member of the Legislature in circumstances where the Crown had decided not to proceed, and so on. This issue of the role and function of special prosecutors and what happens to the disclosure of information that is discovered or produced as a result of an investigation or prosecution was the subject of some considerable analysis in Mr. Owen's report.

Mr. Owen's report contained some recommendations. One of them was that where a decision not to prosecute has been made and the public is not aware of the police investigation, there should be no public disclosure relating to the case. It may be news to the member, but not all appointments of special prosecutors are made public. So that applies to that situation.

His recommendations continue. Where a decision not to prosecute has been made and the public, a victim or other significantly interested person is aware of the police investigation, it is in the public interest that the public, victim or other significantly interested person be given adequate reasons for the non-prosecution by either the police or Crown counsel. I'll come back to that one in a minute.

The third recommendation that's germane, although I should say the whole discussion is quite useful…. The third recommendation is that police reports, other sensitive investigation documents and legal opinions should not be made public where a decision not to prosecute has been made. A report from a special prosecutor in almost every respect is a legal opinion; it's advice to the Assistant Deputy Attorney General with respect to whether or not charges ought to be laid. It is often also a recommendation about that, but it's a recommendation based on legal analysis.

So let me go back to the second recommendation, because I said I would. This case presumably falls into the category of that recommendation — that is, a decision not to prosecute has been made, and the public…. Whether there's a victim or not I suppose is an interesting question, but the public is aware of the investigation. It's in the public interest, Mr. Owen said, that the public be given adequate reasons for the non-prosecution by either the police or Crown counsel. I think that recommendation has been discharged in the present case, because the essence of the matter as described in the media statement is that there was a disclosure of an investigative report by the then minister, now reappointed Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.

As the news release says, it disclosed the report to the principal of the company that was the subject of the investigation. There was no evidence he had any criminal intent in doing so, and consequently the criminal justice branch's charge approval standard had not been met in this case. Peck concluded by stating: "I do not see there being a probability of conviction, let alone a substantial likelihood of conviction."

When you take the second recommendation I referred to in conjunction with the third recommendation — which has to do with the importance of protecting from disclosure sensitive investigative documents, legal opinions, police reports and all of that — I think that the media statement issued by the branch represents a statement of adequate reasons for the non-prosecution, and therefore we have essentially complied with the policy framework, if you will, around these issues. In keeping with the past practice, I do not believe that it is in the public interest to release to the public the report of the special prosecutor. So that is where matters stand in relation to the member's question.

J. MacPhail: Yes. I actually read the Owen report before I prepared for these estimates as well, because of my huge frustration in estimates yesterday. But I appreciate the Attorney General putting it on record.

Just a couple of points, though. One is that while it is rare that special prosecutor reports be released, special prosecutor reports themselves are rare. I'm reminded of at least one case that I can remember, because it caused a substantial dilemma for the government of which I was a part, where a special prosecutor's report was released. It was to do with the euphemistically called Bingogate case. Private interests were affected by the release of that report. The special prosecutor had not in any way said they should be charged criminally, but private interests were affected by that. Specifically, to name them: Dave Barrett and Bob Williams, who were members of the NDP caucus during the time in which the investigation took place. So there is one precedent at least that I am aware of, and I turn to that one just because it was pretty much on point with this one.

I also read the information statement from the Attorney General's office. I think Geoff Gaul was the person responsible for answering questions out of the Attorney General's ministry. For an issue that was of such importance to British Columbians, it's a pretty short statement. It may meet the legal test of the Owen report, but it doesn't meet the public interest test. I would put to the Attorney General that there are many questions that almost arise out of the statement from the special prosecutor, rather than being answered by it.

There is a huge dilemma here. Perhaps the Attorney General won't take it upon himself to solve this dilemma, but the dilemma is this. There is not public satisfaction of full disclosure on this matter, within the confines of what's legally available. It isn't just my dissatisfaction. I have actually been flooded with response

to the exchange between the Minister of Fisheries and me yesterday, particularly between the hours of 10 a.m. and noon during estimates.

I know I always stand up here and say I get e-mail requests and e-mails — and I do — but in this particular case the e-mails didn't come from interests. They came from…. Sorry, the events of this House… I'm not particularly aware of this, but they're replayed in the evening as well. The response from people who put e-mails to me didn't come from those of us who are consumed with the daily events either of this House or of this file. The people came to the conclusion that they weren't getting the information they thought they deserved as citizens of British Columbia. So while the Attorney General may feel that the essence of the technical nature of the Owen report — the various parts of the essence of the report — have been met, certainly the public interest test has not been met by this.

Now, it may be that the public interest test can't be met by the Attorney General. However, it was the Minister of Fisheries who referred me to the Attorney General, and that's why I'm raising these questions here. If the Attorney General has nothing more to offer — and that's not a criticism; he may have nothing more to offer — this government has a real problem with transparency around this particular issue.

The Minister of Fisheries hid behind the special prosecutor's report in order to avoid questions that were dealing with current matters — certainly with matters that related to his reassignment to cabinet. Those questions went unanswered. Lots of British Columbians are feeling pretty dissatisfied with those circumstances created by this government.

Hon. G. Plant: I'm not sure how much more light I can shed on the issues that concern the member, but let me try to take one more step that I think I need to take in terms of clarity of responsibility. I think it is very important for me, in my responsibility as Attorney General, to respect the integrity of the police investigation processes and prosecutorial processes that exist to protect the public and to keep the public safe. It may also be important for me, from time to time, to draw lines around the limits to which that goes.

There is no restriction I'm aware of that flows out of the special prosecutor process, which in any way constrains the ability of the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries to answer questions with respect to what the reason for the investigation was — as he understands it — what actions he may or may not have taken or what policies existed in the ministry with respect to those matters. There may be some limits in terms of protecting the integrity of the investigative processes that exist in the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries that I can't speculate on. I only pause to identify them because I'm certain there will be cases from time to time where that ministry is involved in an investigation into a matter that may result in charges being recommended in circumstances where it would be quite inappropriate to have a debate about that on the floor of the House.

That represents a small footnote in terms of what I'm trying to do in the way of providing assistance to the member in understanding what I believe is both the extent of what I can do to help her but also the limits around that. I have to say it is important…. I want to say it again. I think I said it once. Let me say it again. It is pretty important to me, as minister — maybe it's deeper than that — that we respect these processes, because they are put in place to try to protect the integrity of this institution and others.

It is clearly Mr. Owen's view, and I think has been consistently the view of the criminal justice branch for all these years, that there are very, very powerful reasons why a police investigative report or a special prosecutor's report should not become a public document. That is the general but not universal practice. I want to say that twice, because I think it's important. At the same time, I hope the member has a sense of the extent to which that is or is not relevant as a guide to the minister in terms of responding to the questions that she was asking him yesterday morning in committee.

J. MacPhail: Thank you. I'm satisfied by that discussion that we have just had. I do say, again, that just as the Attorney General wishes — and it is his job — to protect processes such as special prosecution or special prosecutors investigation, it also goes to the integrity of this Legislature that the one time where a minister can be examined about his duties and responsibilities and the carrying out of those be a process of integrity as well. I don't think that occurred yesterday. Anyway, I'm satisfied, Mr. Chair, with the dialogue that the Attorney General and I have had on this matter.

My main points that I'll be making about the Attorney General's portfolio have to do with service plan cuts and downsizing, spousal assault reform, civil liability reform, legal aid services and courthouse cuts — just to name a few. There's one other that I may pursue, but I may not. I think we'll be able to get through this by about 8:30 p.m. or so.

To the service plan. In the ministry's service plan, sitting hours are being reduced for criminal, civil and family cases at all levels of court. Can the minister explain how an increasing caseload — well, first of all, if there is an increasing caseload — will be dealt with if there are fewer sitting hours?

Hon. G. Plant: We're also going to be joined, I think, by Rick McCandless, who is the assistant deputy minister responsible for the court services branch, which is a place where some of the information relating to these organizational capacity measures is found. In fact, broadly speaking, I think the pressure on the Supreme Court in terms of cases and hours is declining. It's one of those graphs that has bumps and peaks and valleys. There are some years where it goes up and some years where it goes down, but on the whole there is, at least in the Supreme Court, a bit of a trend downward. This is related to demand and unrelated to the availability of the service.

I will check about Provincial Court hours, but I know the Supreme Court hours would be a factor in producing the numbers the member sees on page 15 of the service plan.

Hon. G. Plant: I can't give the member exact figures for the entire range of work done by the Provincial Court, but I am informed that there is a significant drop in the number of hours devoted to youth criminal and a reduction of some sort in respect of the number of hours devoted to the Child, Family and Community Service Act apprehension hearings. In fact, again, sort of globally speaking, these numbers reflect an overall small reduction in the demand for the services of the courts of British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: Family law is going better, perhaps we could say, in terms of court proceedings. What else contributes to the caseload reduction, then?

Hon. G. Plant: Well, the member's question is a broader question. Let me give two examples. The criminal caseload management rules have had an impact on reducing some of the time taken in Provincial Court for criminal matters. As an example of some of the work being done that I think is contributing to a reduction in demand in one area is child, family and community service matters, where we have been working pretty hard. This is now speaking pretty globally. The judiciary has been involved in this, and other ministries have been involved in this to some extent. We've been working pretty hard to use mediation and other forms of dispute resolution tools in child apprehension and other cases to kind of tone down the adversariality of some of those cases. That has had an effect in reducing the number of hearings.

I don't have the numbers in front of me about the general family law caseload. My recollection is that there has been no significant reduction there. It's bits and pieces in different places.

J. MacPhail: I note from the service plan that under the legal services division, there are "baseline data to be established" for both the percentage of civil litigation cases to which the government is a party and the number of government ministries and agencies participating in legal risk management programs. Can the Attorney General explain how this baseline data is to be established?

Hon. G. Plant: Well, I'm told it's as simple as we're counting the number of cases and calculating…. There's always been some internal tracking of what the Crown's assessment, the ministry's assessment, is of its exposure and risk in respect of civil litigation, but what we are trying to do — and we are making progress on this — is move forward with a project to do a better job of risk management across government. In a very real sense that involves the legal services branch, as lawyers to the ministries of government, helping the ministries of government do a better job of preventing, anticipating and responding to potential legal claims before or as and when they arise.

J. MacPhail: Is it the Attorney General's intent that by the end of this fiscal year, that baseline will be established?

Hon. G. Plant: As part of answering that, let me just make sure we're on the same page literally. I'm looking at page 16, where the output measure — which is one of the performance measures for the legal services branch — is the percentage of civil litigation cases to which government is a party that employed dispute resolution mechanisms.

I think that's an important qualifier, because part of what we're trying to do is actually also change the culture of government, to some extent, to encourage the use of dispute resolution other than traditional litigation. I think we should be able to have the baseline data during this fiscal year, so what that means is that the year after that we'll start to be in a position to compare the progress that's being made against the baseline that we currently don't have.

J. MacPhail: Under "justice services," it appears that the Attorney General plans to reduce the number of locations offering mandatory referral to family justice counsellors from six to three. I see from note 2 on page 20 of the service plan that this is apparently due to a cost-benefit analysis. Can the minister explain that?

Hon. G. Plant: I'm advised that the three locations that are to be closed or have been closed were three small locations in the Kootenays where an analysis was done of the cost of providing the service in relation to the benefit that was being delivered. It was decided that we could make better use of those resources, in effect, by moving them into the three larger locations. As much as anything, it's a bit of a consolidation to try to get more effective use of the dollars available.

Hon. G. Plant: I'm advised that the answer is yes. I don't have the details of which three locations, but I'd be happy to get them to the member.

J. MacPhail: I assume, going back to our discussion just before this, that keeping track as a performance measure, the number of civil litigation cases to which the government is a party that employ dispute resolution mechanisms…. Will the cases that go to mandatory referral to family justice counsellors not be included? Is that not something that's measured in that group, then? Or is it?

Hon. G. Plant: Here's the distinction between these two numbers. The justice services number that we've

been talking about…. The number of locations offering mandatory referral to family justice counsellors, which has been reduced from six to three, is a service provided to assist parties other than government who are in family disputes. That's what that's about.

The other number, the percentage of civil litigation cases to which government is a party that employed dispute resolution mechanisms — which is an output measure for the legal services branch — essentially refers to lawsuits by or against government in which someone has sued the government because of an accident on a highway or because of some breach of contract — those kinds of things. Those are the cases where we determine that we want to set, as a performance measure, the goal of increasing the extent to which government invokes mediation or alternate dispute resolution techniques as a tool for trying to help solve these things in lieu of the traditional approach of saying that you've got to see us in court.

J. MacPhail: There is a reduction in court services, legal services and prosecution services. Could the minister explain the nature of the reduction and how the Attorney General will be able to provide the same level of service — or will he — with less money and fewer resources?

Hon. G. Plant: It might be helpful if the member were willing to identify the points in the service plan that she's referring to specifically, and then I could maybe give a more specific answer.

J. MacPhail: Sorry. That will just take me a second. I haven't done that in my notes. If the minister could just hold on a second. I'm talking about the line from the estimates that shows the reduction.

Hon. G. Plant: Broadly speaking, as I recall, one part of it was the criminal justice branch. What was the other — the court services branch or…?

Hon. G. Plant: Right. Okay. The legal services branch is essentially the government's law firm — that is, the lawyers who do legal work, provide advice, representation in court and so on to government and to the ministries of government. One of the things that is happening in that area is, broadly speaking, that we are increasing the extent to which we cost-recover the provision of those services from the ministries for whom they are provided.

I could pursue the question of whether there is a general overall reduction in the level of service, but I think the answer is that there is not. There are just going to be different ways of accounting for it.

With respect to the prosecution services, there is a reduction in the operating budget. The decrease in that operating budget is primarily due to the removal of Air India funding, adjustments due to the elimination of the Crown victim witness service program, office closures related to courthouse closures and various other program budget reductions. There are a few offsets in terms of wage adjustments. Overall, we are of the view that we will be able to maintain the same level of prosecution service within the reduced budget.

The court services operating budget. According to the numbers I have in front of me, the reduction there from '02-03 to '03-04 is a percentage reduction of 4.6 percent, representing about $6.5 million. This is due to the removal of Air India funding, some courthouse closure adjustments, some decreases in building occupancy costs and general budget reductions.

Again, we don't think that there will be a diminution or reduction in the level of service provided to the courthouses in the locations where court services are provided. We've been able to sort of squeeze a little bit here, squeeze a little bit there. One or two things that someone would like to do next year may not get done for a couple more years. As I say, we think we are going to generally maintain the same level of service.

In the justice services branch, I think the main decrease there, which is an 8.2 percent reduction from $99.4 million down to $91.2 million, is mainly due to the service plan reductions in the operating costs for legal aid — so there is about $7.8 million worth of reduction there — a small reduction in the family maintenance enforcement program, the debtor assistance program and what's described as the removal of Air India funding. I recognize that is probably a pretty high-speed overview, but that's an overview of the impact of budget reductions in those areas of service.

J. MacPhail: I'll be exploring some of those further in the sections I've outlined.

On spousal assault reform. The criminal justice branch of the Ministry of Attorney General is currently reviewing and revising, I think, many of its policies, but certainly including spousal assault policy. It's my understanding that the ministry is considering decriminalizing spousal abuse, giving Crown counsel discretion not to lay charges in certain cases.

The Attorney General asked for public submissions and consultation on the policy, and the closing date for receiving those submissions was October 28, 2002. The consultation was then terminated. What was the outcome of the public consultation?

Hon. G. Plant: The consultation was helpful, and the criminal justice branch is working to input the advice that was helpful into the process of revising and updating the existing spousal assault policy. The work is not complete, but it's close to complete.

Hon. G. Plant: We expect that the outcome of this will become public either towards the end of April or in the early part of May.

J. MacPhail: I just want to check on something. It just occurred to me. So until this is concluded, this consultation and the recommendations, the policy remains as is?

Hon. G. Plant: The short answer is yes. The existing policy, the Violence Against Women in Relationships Policy, continues to be the document that prosecutors would find in the policy manual and would use until there's a new document put in the binder. So it's still pretty much business, broadly speaking. I can't, obviously, comment on individual cases, but I'm advised that it's still business under the existing policy.

J. MacPhail: Several groups, as I understand it, from the consultation — groups like the Vancouver police board, the Vancouver Rape Relief and Women's Shelter and the B.C. committee for the elimination of discrimination against women — expressed concerns over the government's change in spousal assault policy. Has the ministry taken any steps to meet with these groups or to accommodate those groups' concerns?

Hon. G. Plant: I'm advised that as of December 2002, the branch had received over 340 responses from the public, approximately 45 of which were from organizations — primarily from women against violence committees, transition houses and similar organizations. There were also responses from police departments, a men's resource centre, an aboriginal justice committee and the B.C. Teachers Federation.

There have not been extensive meetings or consultations with the groups that have made these submissions. The branch has been working hard to try, if I may say with respect, to sort out the wheat from the chaff and work towards putting together a revised policy.

The member may or may not be interested in having a long discussion about the details of this. In her opening to this discussion, she offered a characterization of the intent behind the policy reform that I think overstates some of what is intended and is likely to be achieved. Frankly, that has, unfortunately, been a factor that has influenced the public debate to some extent here. The fundamental objective of the criminal justice branch, which will be continued through and into any new policy, is that the criminal justice system must have a very, very strong response to spousal violence.

J. MacPhail: Well, it's good that we have an opportunity to discuss this so we can clear up any misapprehensions or misinformation.

The B.C. committee to end discrimination against women…. I know there are certain cabinet ministers who reject anything that this group says, but fortunately, in my view — and perhaps unfortunately in the government's view — this group does represent views held by many. Their submission said that the proposed changes around spousal assault would increase women's exposure to violence and reduce the ability of service and judicial agencies to respond to the needs of women experiencing violence.

When I read that, I also noted it is in contrast to or perhaps even in conflict with the ministry's values of accessibility. The ministry also has a vision statement that says "an accessible, responsible and accountable justice system that protects the rights of all citizens." What reassurances can the Attorney General offer that any reconsideration of the spousal assault policy will not undermine the vision of an accessible, responsive and accountable justice system?

Hon. G. Plant: I think the initiative that has been engaged in here will actually take steps forward towards those objectives. One of the distinguishing features of the existing policy, the Violence Against Women in Relationships policy — and this may be a feature that is equal parts the way it has been interpreted over time and its actual language — is that it has tended to create a universe in which all spousal assault cases are treated as though they were the same. They are not. We, I think, need to be able to have a conversation in which we are all able to recognize that strong words of insult are different from a slap across the face. They are different from a repeated pattern of intense verbal abuse. They are different from an assault that causes physical injury. They are different from…. And so on.

What has been important about the last two decades or so of the criminal justice system's response to spousal assault has been the recognition — sadly slow in coming — that spousal assault is not something that men are just allowed to do to women but, in fact, involves physical harm and other harm that is serious and needs to be taken seriously. I think what has happened over the last 20 years in terms of changing cultures so that people recognize that spousal assault and spousal violence is criminal, that it is against the law, has been a very constructive step forward.

At the same time, I think it's time for us to recognize that sometimes a one-size-fits-all approach to cases which present as very, very different kinds of issues will lead to a sort of arbitrary manner of handling them that produces inefficiencies and unfairness. If you devote equal amounts of criminal justice system dollars and human resources to each case, then you may be devoting more time than you ought to, to some of the less serious cases, but almost certainly you're going to have less time available to devote to the more serious cases. I don't think that's good criminal justice policy.

Similarly, if the result of the application of a policy, which has usually been referred to as zero tolerance, is that in some cases you end up revictimizing the victim because the victim is simply unable — for reasons that fair-minded people could readily understand — to bring themselves to be brought into a witness box and made to tell a story…. You know, there may be times and places — rare, but I am certain they exist — where the incident itself was sufficiently minor and the opportunity for rehabilitation might be sufficiently real

The alternative, which is the alternative the system experiences far too often on a day-to-day basis, is that this kind of inflexible approach is allowed to grind on inexorably. In courtroom after courtroom, day after day across British Columbia, these cases are stayed, and there is no outcome — nothing that helps the victim, nothing that helps the perpetrator, nothing that helps the community.

I think it's time to look at revising the policy in a way that is responsive to some of those risks and yet is fully consistent with the fundamental objective of ensuring that spousal assault is treated as a crime, that it's treated seriously and that it's given the attention it needs and deserves as part of our overall commitment to public safety.

J. MacPhail: Just let me reflect some of the input that the Attorney General has received from some groups. Another group concerned with the changes to the spousal assault policy, as identified in the discussion paper that the Attorney General put out, is the Vancouver police board. They actually called on the government to drop its plans to change the policy, saying it would be a setback in the province of 20 years. One inspector, Barbara Morris, actually criticized the discussion paper, saying that there already isn't enough support for victims and that if abusers aren't charged, their victims are not likely to come forward.

Another group, the Vancouver Rape Relief and Women's Shelter, is also strongly opposed to the spousal assault policy changes. They state: "Without the explicit direction of the Attorney General to Crown counsels to prosecute in all cases, wife assault cases will only be heard in rare cases, and they fear they will be heard only after serious injury or death."

Now, Statistics Canada has found that close to 60 percent of women have suffered a criminal attack by their male partner. The Vancouver Rape Relief and Women's Shelter has warned: "By not prosecuting and/or by diverting such cases from prosecution, the Attorney General is denying access to justice to a huge number of women. This change in direction will have an effect on the safety and rights of all women in the province."

So that's the contrast or perhaps the complement to the Attorney General's comments just before I rose. I think what we're learning from this, though, is that anything — any modernization or any change or keeping of the status quo — has to be, in my view, determined by a consensus of the community. I certainly hope the Attorney General's ministry will strive for that. The release of the public input and the recommendations will help, but I hope there will also be a period for public discussion after that occurs and before the implementation of any change.

Hon. G. Plant: I don't think I can promise the member that this process is going to continue in the way that she, I understand, argues that it should. I think we are a month or so away from the adoption of what will amount to a new policy, a revised policy in this area. I recognize that any attempt at change in this area is going to be viewed carefully by people. I hope that people who are interested, as we are, in ridding the world of the scourge of domestic violence will look at what the criminal justice branch actually does in terms of implementing this slightly new and different approach.

I think it's pretty important that we don't overstate the extent of the change here, but I get the fact that for some groups in society, moving a sentence or two around in a document that's pretty critically important to them is all by itself an adventure fraught with some risk. However, that should not be a reason to avoid making change where change is needed, and that is why this initiative was initiated and why it will continue.

I think it's important to maybe just make one other point. You know, this policy is fundamentally a policy about what prosecutors do. Police boards may have some concern about what their police forces will do, and I'm not seeking through this initiative to direct them in any way. I sincerely hope and fully expect that police will continue to thoroughly investigate all allegations of spousal violence and to deal with them in a responsible manner.

What this policy revision is about, in part, is simply recognizing that when we completely remove discretion and judgment from the toolkit of pretty important people in the system — that is, prosecutors — we don't actually end up making the system better. We just end up making it arbitrary, and that doesn't produce good outcomes. I think the introduction of a modest amount of discretion, appropriately constrained and used in a limited number of cases in circumstances where prosecutors will themselves be fully trained and are among the province's experts in this area in many respects, represents a modest but defensible exercise in reform. I am certain that the member and all of those whose correspondence she has read, including the ones that she has read out loud, will continue to pay close attention to this initiative in the months to come.

J. MacPhail: I would now like to explore civil liability reform. I understand that the Attorney General has said he will not be introducing any legislation this session, that he wants to consult more, so I just want to probe this issue a little bit.

I noted in the civil liability review consultation paper, the Attorney General's ministry outlines six issues for review. It's interesting that the six issues sort of appear there. For laypeople, there is no discussion about why there's a need for change in this area. The whole matter seems to be very much driven from a professional point of view, from a lawyer's point of view. I just note that as an aside, because my questions flow as a layperson.

Why were the issues for changes to the legislation chosen to be joint and several, vicarious liability, the

Limitation Act, non-delegable duty, class actions and structured damage awards? Is that the extent of the range of civil liability? If it is, then my next questions aren't necessary.

Hon. G. Plant: The answer to the member's question is no. The issues that are identified for consideration in the civil liability review discussion paper do not comprise the entire extent of civil liability.

The discussion arose out of a couple of speeches I made, starting as long ago as October-November 2001. I sat down and thought about the state of the law — the common law and statute law around the principles that applied to determine when people would be liable for having committed a civil wrong. I asked myself the question: what of the state of that law, and what of recent developments in that law, including developments that come from appellate courts? Is the law in these particular areas fair? Does it strike a fair balance between the interests of those who may be the victims of wrongdoing and the interests of those who may find themselves as defendants in a lawsuit, being accused of having committed wrongdoing?

The law has always struck a balance in a number of different ways that is intended to respect the rights prospective victims have, as well as the rights of people who may have caused harm, to have some certainty about what the limits of their liability may be. There were a number of issues that occurred to me as being issues where these questions could legitimately be asked.

As I say, I made a couple of speeches, and then we decided to kind of collect some of that into what became the discussion paper the member has referred to. The discussion paper was never intended to be exhaustive or exclusive. In fact, for as long as I have been talking about these things — which in some respects now starts to seem like an awfully long time, going back almost seven years — I've always been saying to members of the public and to the legal profession and others that I think government has a role in ensuring that the law is modern, that it is up to date and that it is fair, and I've invited people to give me ideas for ways in which the law should be reformed.

Specifically in the speeches that led to this review and in this review, I explicitly invited the public to identify more or other issues that may be of interest to them, and they did. Within the submissions we received were a number of other issues in addition to comments from people about the issues we identified. These issues were identified, as I say, because they struck me as being areas of law where the questions around fairness, around predictability, around certainty and around justice, broadly speaking, were timely. I guess I could say they're always timely and that we should always be asking those questions, but the questions, when asked, do not limit themselves to the five or six issues that were the subject of the review.

J. MacPhail: The reason why I was asking the question about whether the entire range of civil liability is to be reviewed was not to somehow suggest that it wasn't comprehensive but to figure out why the minister was choosing these particular points. I, of course, as a layperson, have to rely on the stuff that's sent to me. Of course, I think the Attorney General knows that the Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia has strongly held views on this matter — the Coalition Against No-Fault in British Columbia.

I was struck by some of the questions that were being asked by those groups. For instance, the trial lawyers said, around joint and several liability: "Why should purchasers of leaky condominiums lose their life savings due to the government's failure to inspect and protect?"

On non-delegable duty, the trial lawyers say: "By eliminating non-delegable duty, doesn't the government also eliminate the likelihood that an injured person will recover all of their damages?"

On vicarious liability, they say: "What standard of care should we impose upon employers in the case of sexual predators at day care centres or abusive staff at nursing homes, among many examples?"

Then, on the Limitation Act, they say: "Should a child victim of sexual assault be prevented from taking action when they have come to grips with the abuse after reaching adulthood? If there is a design flaw in an airplane that crashes, does it matter if it happens after two years or after ten years?"

I was struck by those questions that were brought up. They seem to me to be questions that need to be answered before change occurs in this area.

What is the plan of the minister in moving ahead with this review now? Perhaps he could outline his new time frame.

Hon. G. Plant: We are still reading and thinking about what we have learned and heard, to some extent. But I think that as we do some work inside government to think about what we have learned and heard, we're eventually going to have to make some decisions about this. While the member is quite right that I don't have any intention of moving forward with an initiative in the spring legislative session, we're certainly not going to let this linger forever. Over the course of the next number of months — perhaps leading into the early part of next year, even — we'll have to make up our minds as government where we go next, whether that is with a specific reform initiative in the form of legislation with an initiative to continue some discussion in some areas or perhaps to not move forward, depending on what we think is the best decision having regard to what we've heard and government's views on this subject. There is no fixed time frame in mind, but that's a broad outline of what I anticipate a time frame might look like.

J. MacPhail: I assume that because of the nature of this whole issue, it would be highly unlikely that legislation could be retroactive.

Hon. G. Plant: I agree. From my perspective, this initiative has always been about thinking about the

law, generally speaking, and asking the sorts of questions that I referred to earlier.

To give the member an example of a similar initiative, in the early 1970s there was a very significant initiative to modernize the state of limitations legislation as it then existed in British Columbia, which may have gone back to the statutes of William and Mary or something like that. When the Limitation Act was introduced in about 1974 — I may have my dates wrong — it was actually brought in on a basis that did not make it operational or effective until some period of months after it had been enacted. That was, in itself, in the legislation, which essentially gave lawyers an opportunity to file a writ if they felt they needed to protect the cause of action.

I'm not saying that that's what would happen here, but on the other hand, it illustrates — at least I hope it illustrates — my view that this is not the sort of initiative that I foresee would lead to retroactive legislation.

J. MacPhail: I've actually been following the changes that are occurring in terms of civil liability in the United States. There is some substantial discussion there. I would even go as far as to say "controversy." I hope the minister is guided by that as well. I mean, I understand that the laws…. Well, maybe…. No, I won't go there. I don't understand that.

I just want to highlight some of the other issues that we have gleaned from people concerned about this matter. Here's a list of the concerns. Because the minister has said that he is going to be examining all of these matters, and it sounds to me anyway as if there won't be legislation introduced this session, I put these on the record for his consideration.

From a group of lawyers. Firstly, the proposed changes to the civil liability laws will directly affect the outcome of judgments, and therefore people are concerned about how the proposed changes will enhance fairness and justice for parties harmed.

Secondly, although plaintiff complaints have not fared well under the current statutes, for those parties with significant financial resources, justice has been accessible. How will the financial inequities now present in civil liability cases become more balanced under a revised system?

Thirdly, justice can only be achieved if the parties harmed are compensated for their losses. How do the proposed changes work toward enhancing that outcome?

Fourthly, the increased financial exposure of some parties is the direct result of others escaping their contribution toward damages. How do the proposed changes compel a fair distribution of compensatory damages?

Lastly, addressing liability issues, which are the symptoms of the problem, may not remedy the shortcomings of other contributory public policies. Is it not the role of government to first monitor and address the public policy issues that engender liability?

I thought those were pretty reasonable questions and not inflammatory. I put them on the record for the minister to consider as he moves forward on this issue.

Hon. G. Plant: There were 78 substantive responses received, and 36 were completed questionnaires. Detailed submissions were provided on 24, and 18 provided comments. If the member has the time, and goodness knows I can't imagine how she would, some of this is on the website.

It's not a big number of responses. The comment I guess I would make in that context is that quite a number of them come from groups that are fairly large groups, and so I think they represent ultimately the views of quite a few more people than would be suggested by the numbers I've just read.

J. MacPhail: Now to legal services, legal aid. Is the trustee going to be replaced with a legal services board soon?

Hon. G. Plant: A few weeks. I'd like to say within a month. We may get there, but that's roughly the time frame.

J. MacPhail: When I was doing my research, I went to vote 11. The way I do my research is to have last year's blue books and this year's blue books. Under vote 11, ministry operations, the appropriations for several services provided by the Ministry of Attorney General are grouped under justice services. The voted appropriation description for justice services includes legal aid services, yet there's no breakdown within that voted appropriation itself. Now, that's new. Why? It used to be broken out.

Hon. G. Plant: Well, it turns out that the answer is that from time to time we get different instructions from Treasury Board about how these things are to be presented. I'm told that four or five years ago these numbers were all in one line, then the ministry got some instructions to break them out into more detail, and now it's come back. I would certainly be happy to try to give the member some more detail now, or if the member would prefer to have it in another form, I could provide her with a written explanation that breaks those numbers down in more detail.

J. MacPhail: Well, I just have one question. There's $91 million allocated to justice services in this year's budget. How much of that will be for legal aid?

J. MacPhail: Last year during estimates the Attorney General claimed: "I'll make this prediction, and I'll

stand on it. Three years from now people will look to British Columbia, as they have done, as a leader in Canada in terms of innovation and service delivery for the provision of legal advice and representation to people who can least afford it." That was said on Thursday, March 28, 2002. Well, we still have a trustee, and the budget is now at $63 million. Can the minister perhaps update us to show how he's on track to achieving that claim?

Hon. G. Plant: There are a number of different ways to answer the question, because as I heard the member read my statement, I don't know that I was speaking in a way that was limited to the work done by the Legal Services Society. I think there are many things that we are doing in many different ways to try to encourage people to rethink what law practice — I think it was Karl Llewelyn who said: "We'll all work for law jobs or law stuff" — those terms, what all that's about, how we're trying to rethink it and redo it in ways that will help people achieve better outcomes and in ways that people in other parts of Canada are, in fact, already looking to as being models for new approaches….

Specifically, within the Legal Services Society, the society has been restructured. It's a structure that is going to be effective in reducing some of the costs that were formerly spent on administrative matters and focusing more dollars on service delivery. The society has been doing quite a considerable amount of work in rethinking how it does the work it does — everything from new approaches to fee structures for lawyers, new billing arrangements, all the way to assisting in supporting pilot projects for the expansion of alternate dispute resolution in child apprehension cases.

The society continues to provide duty counsel. I think there have been pilot duty counsel projects in the family law area in at least a couple of courthouses. Surrey is one, and Robson Square. What the society is doing increasingly is unbundling legal services to get lawyers — and to some extent their clients and other service providers — to expand their horizons about what it means to help people who have the need for legal advice or representation.

I recognize that there's still a trustee in place. We wanted to spend some time identifying good candidates for the new board. I think we're on the verge of completing that work. So that's why I say we're just a few weeks away from putting the new board in place. I think there's been some good work done.

There is a new accountability relationship in place between the LSS and government. I think it's a relationship that respects independence, where independence is important in terms of the individual solicitor-client relationship that often exists between LSS lawyers and clients. But on the other hand, it recognizes that LSS spends an awful lot of public money and that government has a legitimate role to play in helping set priorities for how that money is spent and in providing ideas to LSS in a sort of continuing discussion about how to improve the way in which LSS provides the services that it provides.

J. MacPhail: Well, I want to deal with one aspect of legal services to see how the Attorney General can meet that test. There's been a recent announcement by the Legal Services Society regarding the memorandum of understanding signed with the Attorney General's office, and it indicates that funding for immigration matters will be phased out. No budget has been allocated for these services beyond the end of this fiscal year, March 31, 2004.

The memorandum of understanding states: "Upon the request of the Attorney General, the society will give notice that immigration coverage will diminish or cease altogether on a time line that limits expenditures to an amount determined by the Attorney General in consultation with the society." Why is the Attorney General considering phasing out legal aid services to immigrants?

Hon. G. Plant: Well, the first point to make is that immigration services are fully funded in fiscal '03-04 — that is, the current fiscal year. The member is right: the service plan does not provide any funding for immigration services in '04-05. What we have been doing is negotiating with the federal government with respect to this issue, because at a time when we have to make some choices about how to spend limited dollars in terms of providing legal aid services, my view is that the federal government has an obligation to step up to the plate and fulfil some of its responsibilities in this area.

I believe it is the case that immigration legal services are unique. Let me explain. They are different from legal services in pretty well every other area I could think of that the Legal Services Society would ever be involved in. The federal government enacts the immigration law, the law that affects the substantive rights of prospective immigrants and refugees. The federal government creates the institutions that administer those substantive rights and obligations. The federal government appoints the people who staff those organizations and make those decisions. In this area, and what makes it unique, the federal government also has exclusive constitutional authority in respect of the regulation of those who seek the right to appear as counsel in matters involving those various tribunals they create.

So in every single way but one, the federal government drives this bus. It seems to me to follow logically that there's a pretty strong argument that if the federal government wants to make immigration law, wants to create immigration tribunals, wants to give those tribunals authority, wants the exclusive right to appoint the people who staff those agencies and decide who gets to appear in front of them, it's a pretty reasonable request to say they should pay the cost of providing legal services to those who cannot otherwise afford legal representation.

That is part of what I believe ought to be the united view of practitioners and citizens in British Columbia.

It's certainly the position that we have been arguing strongly with the federal government. Let me put that argument into another context which I think is important. It is only tangentially relevant, but I want to take advantage of the opportunity to make this point now. It is not as though the federal government were only, shall we say, inadequate in respect of this aspect of its responsibilities in the area of indigent legal services funding.

For a long time the federal government has been a long, long way behind its responsibilities, its admitted responsibilities, in respect of providing funding for legal aid in those areas where it admits it is responsible for sharing the funding — that is, criminal and youth justice in particular. There was a time — and it wasn't much longer ago than about 1990 — when the federal government was a 50-cent partner with the province of British Columbia in supporting legal aid funding in these areas. But it was too long ago, in my view, because over time that share of contribution has been eroded to the point where the federal contribution to these expenditures is now 26 cents of every dollar. That's a long way down from 50 cents of every dollar.

Frankly, the legal services we could provide and the work we could do in British Columbia in areas like family justice in particular and perhaps even poverty law and, goodness knows, perhaps even immigration law — if the federal government were willing to just simply step back up to the base and do what it acknowledges is one of its responsibilities and do it in a way that's fair — would be quite remarkable. That is also part of this picture, and frankly, it is not just that.

The federal government doesn't pay its fair share on the basis that I have described. It doesn't provide anywhere near its fair share when you do the numbers on a per-capita basis. I think the numbers there are important to point out for the benefit of the members participating in this debate. The federal contribution to criminal and young offender legal aid in 2000-01 on a per-capita basis in the province of Ontario was $3.06. In Nova Scotia it was $2.98. You've got to go an awful long way down the list before you get to British Columbia at $2.25 per capita. I think that puts us sixth or seventh on the list.

The member probably didn't expect quite as full an answer to the question, but all of this is connected to the broader question of what it is that we can do in British Columbia to make best use of limited dollars to support services. One of the ways we are working hard to make that so is by seeking of the federal government their commitment that they take over the funding responsibility for legal aid in immigration matters.

J. MacPhail: I'm always impressed with the thoughtful insight the Attorney General has into his own performance. No, I do appreciate the answer. I am a bit taken aback, though, I must say, and I am going to get into the federal government funding. I am taken aback, though, by how this government, now that they're actually in charge, are the champions of the inequities between the federal government's responsibility to British Columbians. I am quite taken aback. They have become new champions, converts on some road to this matter. It certainly didn't consume them at all when those cuts were being made in terms of federal transfers for various programs — health, education and legal services — in the 1990s.

I'm taken aback on another front, though, and that is that somehow this government's suggesting there is no history to a provincial uptake of immigration services and the responsibility for that. There is a long history — some of it a long history, some of it fairly fresh — in terms of changes about the responsibility of the province for immigration services. I would hope and advocate very strongly that this government not opt out of provision of legal aid for immigration services before they have the commitment from the federal government to take up the responsibility that the Attorney General says is theirs.

Here will be the consequences. If the provincial government opts out of paying for legal aid for immigrant services a short 11½ months from now, let me just advise the House of what some of those consequences will be. This is a major issue in my riding. MOSAIC, the immigration services organization, is in my riding and, of course, offers services much beyond my riding, but so many of my constituents are affected by that.

The phasing-out of funding that will occur after 2004 to MOSAIC…. It's estimated that services will have to be cut back as early as September or October of this year. There are over 2,000 claims each year in Vancouver and the lower mainland for legal aid for immigration services. Legal aid for immigration services covers things like deportation hearings, refugee claims, appeals and judicial reviews on refugee law, detention hearings. This information was just communicated to me today. "If refugee claimants or immigrants are not well prepared when appearing before a tribunal or a judge, they may lose their case even though they have a legitimate claim. Legal aid allows these people to be well prepared and to have adequate representation. Having to fend for themselves may mean that refugees lose their status even though their case may be well founded."

I don't think this is the kind of society that British Columbia wants to become. "This could lead to deportation, and in some extreme cases" — MOSAIC says — "deportation is akin to a death sentence." MOSAIC says that, admittedly, that's the extreme end.

There's a lot of concern around separated children. These are children who arrive in Canada without their parents and are unescorted by anyone from the ministry. They are usually accompanied by another family member or acquaintance. "There are many concerns that these children will lose out because lawyers will not be assigned to their cases, and obviously children cannot represent themselves or afford lawyers. People are very concerned about the future of separated children."

As everyone in this House knows, a lawyer can cost thousands of dollars. This money is money that recent

immigrants and refugee claimants simply do not have, in the vast majority of cases. What can the Attorney General tell the community about steps that are being taken to ensure that immigrants and refugees will have access to adequate legal services?

Hon. G. Plant: I think it's fair to say that if the service providers in the community think there is some force in the argument that the federal government has a responsibility here, then I have to say that I sincerely hope they are bringing their considerable influence to bear in Ottawa to persuade the federal government that it has a responsibility here and that it should discharge some of that responsibility.

The member has read from a list of potential consequences. One of the concerns that I have heard expressed from time to time, including on behalf of the federal government, is that in British Columbia we have what amounts to a Cadillac form of legal advice and representation in the immigration and refugee area.

I would also say that there may be work that the immigration bar and consultants could do to find greater efficiencies, perhaps, in the way that they practise. Obviously, they are more expert than I an in determining how that might go about happening, but the fact is that when you look at the per-capita expenditures on immigration and refugee legal aid across Canada, it's apparent that there's no rhyme or reason. There are different ways of doing things in other provinces. I'm referring to those provinces where immigration is a significant fact of life and where there is a demand for these services. So I think there are probably ways in which what we do can be done differently here, speaking broadly. I think I can also say that we are mindful of the kinds of concerns that the member has brought to the floor of the House.

I want to say, by the way, that when I commented on the decline in federal contribution in respect of its shareable costs for legal aid funding over the 1990s, I can well imagine the frustration that the member undoubtedly felt from time to time as she experienced the impact of similar reductions in some of the areas for which she had program responsibility in those days.

But here we are today. Without in any way being critical of the former government in respect of this issue, I do think that now is the time to take a new look and see if there is a way we could jointly or collectively persuade the federal government that they, in fact, will be to blame if there is an injustice experienced as a result of their failure to do their job to ensure that the people who use their services — under their law and adjudicated by the officials that they appoint — don't actually have completely equal access to those services because of their inability to pay for them.

J. MacPhail: Well, my pitch here is that the victims in the debate about who should pay for legal services for immigration should not be the poorest. They should not be refugees and newly arrived immigrants, and that's my plea.

This government has set a firm date that by March 31, 2004, they will not contribute any more to legal aid for immigration services. There is no plan, as I can tell yet, for this government to persuade the federal government to fill the void, and here's what the consequences will be if indeed this minister and this B.C. Liberal government go ahead with ending funding for legal aid for immigration services. In the last fiscal year reported, '01-02, Legal Services paid for 2,405 immigration clients. This year, '02-03, it will probably be that there will be 1,500 clients by the end of this fiscal year. So even as the agency tries to deal with cuts, there are still 1,500 cases that we can anticipate will need assistance even as the funding is cut completely.

Now, in terms of the overall legal services budget…. I mean, the immigration tariff is a very small portion of it. It's about $4.92 million estimated for this year out of $63.62 million. It does also appear to some people, anyway, that with the new border controls and increased security measures, there will be a lessening of pressure on legal services. Nevertheless, assuming those pressures will ease somewhat the burden, they will not in any way make much of a dent into the about 1,500 cases that will occur.

What the community groups who are attempting to help these people predict is that the clients, in their desperation, will become even more vulnerable to unscrupulous people. They will be manipulated and exploited, and if the money coming for legal aid for immigration services is zero, clients will turn to existing community groups for help — help in completing their forms, help with translation and requests that community workers accompany them to their hearings, etc. Community groups are already overburdened. I've met with some of them. There are many more meetings occurring. They simply do not feel they will be able to take up the additional load.

It's always interesting to have the toings and froings of federal-provincial funding for services, but I expect that no one in this chamber would want the victims of the toing and froing and the disputes about legal aid funding for immigration services to be the immigrants or refugees or, in fact, the separated children themselves.

It is interesting that the minister brings up the issue of federal government funding. It's my understanding that in the most recent budget, the federal government announced an increase of $89 million over the next two years for legal aid, particularly criminal legal aid. How much of that will be allocated to British Columbia?

Hon. G. Plant: I'm just working on providing the answer to that specific question.

Before we leave the other issue altogether, I want to say I respect the member's interest in the issue and, frankly, wish she could be as forceful in making that case in Ottawa as she has tried to be here on the floor of the Legislature.

Let me put some of this in context. The amounts we're talking about…. I think the allocation for immigration legal services in the current fiscal year is about $4.88 million or thereabouts. We are talking about a situation where $1 million or $2 million could make a significant difference in the level of service. In fact, for a couple of million dollars we could do a pretty good amount of the work that needs to be done, particularly when, as I'm given to understand, there's a 30 percent drop in business.

I don't mean to be unfair in drawing this comparison, but the Minister of Justice has recently announced that he intends to spend $48 million to educate lawyers in Canada about his relatively modest — and I do say that deliberately — changes to the Divorce Act. Well, I don't know. I wonder if the lawyers of British Columbia would give up their $5 million share of that $48 million in continuing legal education funding and dedicate it to the provision of legal aid services. Just a thought.

At any rate, to take the member's question, when you break the $89 million promise down — we understand it's $89 million over two years — it works out, as we understand it, to about $20 million of new money. We're thinking we should expect to get about $2 million, although that is still a matter for negotiation, and the details have not yet been worked out.

J. MacPhail: What does the federal government currently pay toward legal aid?

Hon. G. Plant: In 2002 the federal contributions are, according to the notes I have, $10.7 million.

J. MacPhail: I certainly appreciate the Attorney General's point of view in advocating that, perhaps, lawyers make a contribution.

J. MacPhail: Exactly. Exactly. My last question — and this is my last question — is about the Salmon Arm Observer reporting recently about the courthouse. It was reported that a project to build a new combined courthouse and district office is on the rocks — and I quote from the Observer, April 3 — due to "a lack of commitment on the part of the Attorney General's office." So what is the status of the courthouse in Salmon Arm?

Hon. G. Plant: I'm advised that since the article was published, there has been some communication. That means BCBC will shortly be presenting a proposal to the mayor and council of Salmon Arm for a joint venture related to the fact that the existing justice facilities in Salmon Arm are not terribly adequate. So we're making a bit of progress on that issue.

But I should say that generally, there isn't really very much capital money in my ministry's budget. So the extent to which we will able to make progress in some of the areas where the state of courthouse facilities leaves something to be desired is going to be a function of the extent to which people in those communities can do some creative thinking about public-private partnerships or joint ventures or initiatives like that.

J. MacPhail: Thank you to the Attorney General and his staff. I'll turn over the questions to other members.

K. Stewart: I have a couple of questions. First, with regard to courthouses. The first two questions have been left to me by my colleague from Burnaby-Willingdon, so they will be reflecting Burnaby's situation.

When the Burnaby courthouse was closed, it was anticipated the cases would be referred to the Coquitlam courthouse to make it convenient and efficient for the Burnaby RCMP. This apparently has not happened, and they are now required to go to Vancouver, which causes undue hardship and the expenditure of more time. Why was the original plan changed, and can the Burnaby cases be transferred to Coquitlam?

Hon. G. Plant: I'm advised that in this case the judiciary wanted cases to go to Main Street in Vancouver and that that wish was supported by the bar. That is the explanation for what has happened.

K. Stewart: A second question from Burnaby. It was expected that video conferencing would play a major role in implementing efficiencies and cost savings. How far ahead are we in this field?

Hon. G. Plant: In general terms, I think we have become and are leaders in Canada, and perhaps more broadly, in the use of video conferencing. It's an important tool in reducing unnecessary travel time for witnesses and sometimes — or perhaps even more importantly — for persons who are accused, who are in custody or who would otherwise have to travel long distances to attend in court for minor appearances. So we are making good use of this tool. I'm certain there is room, over time, to expand it as financial resources permit, but I think we have a lot to be proud of here. The service plan has a commitment to increase the number of video conferencing units in use from a base of 62 in 2001-02 by three per year over five years up to '05-06, until we get to 74 units.

K. Stewart: Further to the question of courthouses, after the closure of the Maple Ridge courthouse last year I was under the belief that there would be a review one year after the closure, which would be approximately June or July of this year. Is there a review in the 2003-04 workplan of the minister, and if so, what are the projected outcomes he will be looking to measure in this review?

Hon. G. Plant: I'm advised that a review has already been conducted. We examined the impact of

transfer of files, which I believe was into Port Coquitlam. The review has determined that Port Coquitlam has been able to absorb the increase in its workload without, in our view, any significantly deleterious impact on scheduling hearings or the like, so that represents the status of that matter as of now.

K. Stewart: With regard to the financial implications of the review, two issues were stated as rationale for doing this. One was a reduction in FTEs, and the other was a reduction in courtroom costs by not having another facility. The two questions resulting from that are: have there been the projected FTE savings? And have there been savings with regard to the rental of the courthouse? And if the ministry has saved funds on this, do they know what implications this has on BCBC with their funding, or was that put into the mix?

Hon. G. Plant: I'm advised that we have achieved the expected financial savings of just under $2 million, and we have also achieved the FTE reduction that was projected at the time of the decision to close the courthouse in Maple Ridge.

K. Stewart: One further question with regard to the implications of the courthouse closure, and that was a question put to us by the district of Maple Ridge with regard to downloading costs. Have you received anything from Maple Ridge indicating the costs they may have incurred above what they would have incurred if the courthouse had stayed open in Maple Ridge?

Hon. G. Plant: I don't believe I've received any information from the district directly. I'm also advised that the assistant deputy minister of the court services branch doesn't believe he's received any information. No news yet, I guess.

K. Stewart: I appreciate the fact, and I'm pleased to see that we did achieve the savings that we anticipated at the time.

I have one final question, and that's with regard to the federal changes to the Young Offenders Act. Given the new changes to the Young Offenders Act, it's my understanding that there is more emphasis on diversion-type programs for youth. I'm wondering what impact that change will have on the Attorney General's budget, and if he's looking to direct funding to meet that diversionary-type program or if he's aware of money coming from other ministries to do that.

Hon. G. Plant: There has been a significant decline in the volume of young offenders in closed custody over the last period of time. In some respect that is probably due to demographic trends.

Let me say this, which I should have said first. In terms of program responsibility for the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the member might want to spend some time asking questions of the Minister of Children and Family Development, who really has the responsibility for young offender corrections, if I can put it that way.

I think, and I believe this is the view of the criminal justice branch, that it's too soon to say whether the slightly different processes that have been brought into force as a result of the new Youth Criminal Justice Act are going to have an effect in terms of either increasing or decreasing the amount of time spent in court dealing with young offender matters. From the point of view of my ministerial responsibility, that is the point of direct contact.

We think that, broadly speaking, the approach that the YCJA takes is intended to be pretty similar to the approach which, as the member knows, we have become known for in a leadership sense across Canada over the past number of years. But as is often the case, these general ideas have been expressed in somewhat different structures in the YCJA. Actually, there is some apprehension that — at least as we get adjusted to what these new rules are and while we're waiting for judges to pour some content into these processes — we may experience a bit more work rather than a bit less work. Really, we are in a transition stage.

In terms of program funding, that really is a matter that the member should take up with the Minister of Children and Family Development or, to some extent, the Solicitor General. Sorry about that, but that's the way it is.

K. Stewart: Just following up on that a bit. I appreciate the fact that once the youth is sentenced or a determination has been made, the responsibility very clearly becomes that of the other ministry.

It's in that sort of transitional period when they're still in the court system as such…. That's what I'm trying to capture. I guess my reason for trying to express this is that I believe that's a very important part of our process in dealing with young offenders and keeping them out of some of that more traditional sentencing format and going off to those programs that fall outside of the court obviously.

But that's why I'm just trying to encourage the minister. I support the moves that have been made within the processes of the British Columbia government — how progressive we have been over the years. I just want to ensure that there is that mechanism there and that the process doesn't fall off before they actually get to the point where they're going to get sentenced, because it still is within that court diversion. That's some difficulty I've had in the past of trying to find the correct venue for support for some of these programs which I think are very beneficial to the community, because there doesn't appear to be funding for them after they're sentenced in that process.

Hon. G. Plant: Essentially, I'm rising to say that I think we agree with the approach the member has outlined. The broader issue — of the relationship between different stages of the investigation and prosecution process and when opportunities exist for alternate

measures or diversion and how they ought to be exercised — is a subject that I think, frankly, all of the participants in the system need to continue to work on to ensure that we take advantage, in appropriate cases, of the kind of opportunities that the member is talking about. That discussion may be a bit broader and is perhaps for another occasion.

K. Stewart: I just want to thank you for your information. I am pleased that we're moving in that direction and have been very supportive of that. I'd also like to add one further comment to the Maple Ridge courthouse. Since it has been closed, I've received not one concern or complaint with regard to the service not being provided. I just wanted to add that in too.

D. MacKay: You'd be pleased to know that some of the questions I was seeking an answer to were addressed by the opposition leader, dealing with the reduction in court time in the Provincial Court and the Supreme Court. We should be able to move along here quite quickly.

Following along that same vein to the minister. In the service plan we talk about the court backlogs. In the last couple of lines on page 7 of the service plan dealing with court backlogs, it talks about the number of new cases entering the court system. They have not decreased, and backlogs continue to be a concern. I wonder how we equate those two — downsizing of the court time and yet at the same time saying the backlog is continuing to be a concern to the ministry.

Hon. G. Plant: I understand the member's question concerns backlogs, but we were busy trying to find the actual paragraph from the service plan. Could I ask the member to repeat his question?

D. MacKay: On page 7 of the service plan we talk about court backlogs. The second and last line under that heading talks about the number of new cases entering the system not decreasing, and the backlog continues to be a concern to the ministry. At the same time, we're reducing the court times in the Provincial Court and the Supreme Court. I'm wondering how those two relate. If the backlogs continue to be a problem and we're reducing court times, how are we ever going to get ahead of this issue?

Hon. G. Plant: Well, I'm tempted to say that the explanation for the discrepancy the member has apparently pointed to lies in the fact that cases are getting more complicated and longer. That is, frankly, a reality. I'm not equipped here to provide statistical evidence to support that claim, but it is certainly a pretty widely shared view among people in the legal system. In the golden days, you could do an impaired driving case in an hour or 45 minutes. Now they sometimes take a day and a half.

The fact is that during the last two years the adult pending cases have increased by 2,400, or 10 percent, and they are now at the December 1999 level. These kinds of numbers are a concern to us, and we are looking for ways to deal with them. We still have hopes that the criminal caseload management initiative will help us in this regard.

This is part of a larger discussion that I've been encouraging in the justice community in the search for ways to achieve some level of efficiency and how we use the resource of court services, not just because they're expensive but because inefficiency breeds a lack of quality and contributes to unfair outcomes. We need to address that.

D. MacKay: Do we have an acceptable time frame that a criminal case can be in the court system or a number of criminal cases can be in the court system before we look at hiring more legal staff to deal with the issues? I mean, we can only back up so many cases, and eventually we'll get to the process we had years ago where the courts were claiming it was an abuse of process, and cases were being dismissed because of the length of time it took to get into the court system. So do we have an acceptable time frame for criminal matters from the time of the offence to appearance time in court and conclusion of the matter before we start hiring more people to address the issue?

Hon. G. Plant: I've been assisted by staff reminding me about the constitutional principles — what period of time is acceptable or not acceptable from that perspective. The criminal justice branch operates in a world that has to be mindful of that. The member's question actually causes me to think I'd like half an hour to answer it, and I'm not going to indulge myself at his expense. Why I mean that is this. You know, from an administrative perspective, we have to live with the world we're given, to some extent. Frankly, I have to say that world is a world in which I don't foresee that there's a huge pot of money out there that would allow us to go and hire more court staff and more judges to deal with that situation. That's another way of saying: I don't actually think the problem is money.

I'll tell you, sort of push the envelope one bit more…. I think that if I sat in a room of justice system professionals and asked the question the member has asked, I would get a range of numbers. Then if I went and sat in a room with members of the public and asked them the same question, I would get a set of numbers. Here is what I can predict about that with virtual certainty. The second set of numbers would be much smaller than the first set of numbers. Sooner or later all of us in this thing we call the justice system have got to start paying attention to the people in the second set of numbers and recognize that, in fact, we could do a heck of a lot to advance the interests of justice that are shared in terms of things like accountability, deterrence and responsibility if we brought people into a courtroom within four weeks of the offence as opposed to sitting around and arguing about how it may or may not be acceptable to wait eight, 12, 15, 16

D. MacKay: I appreciate the difficulty in answering that question, but I just don't want to see us go back to the stage we were at years ago when the judges were throwing out cases, claiming it was an abuse of process, and all that investigative time and the cost to the taxpayer, the municipality and the province were wasted because we couldn't get them into the court system. I'd hate to see us go back to that.

The process on page 12 of the service plan dealing with strategies. We're talking about reforming the process for hearing disputed traffic violations. I understand what we're doing. I wonder if the minister could explain to me: are we following a model from another province, or are we going down a road that has been untested in the past?

Hon. G. Plant: The short answer is that what we've been doing, we don't believe is something that's been done, necessarily, in other provinces. We're not necessarily doing this because we've seen another model in another province. What we're trying to do is follow, essentially, the parking ticket model for these traffic disputes.

D. MacKay: I take it it's an untested…. A moving violation is different from a parking violation in a municipality. So we're trying something new.

Noting the time and the fact that I have several more questions, I would ask that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

In addition to providing transcripts on the Internet, Hansard Services publishes transcripts in print and broadcasts Chamber debates on television.