Hansard -- Monday, May 3, 2004 a.m. -- Vol. 24, No. 9 (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

Private Members' Statements		10723
	Circle route
	B. Kerr
	J. Bray
	Offshore oil and gas development: B.C.'s bright future
	L. Mayencourt
	B. Belsey
	Prevent and prosper: the merits of preventative health care
	G. Trumper
	Hon. S. Brice
	Bringing goods to market: a new era in transportation
	V. Roddick
	Hon. K. Falcon

Motions on Notice		10731
	Negotiations with first nations on B.C. Rail–CN Rail agreement (Motion 114)
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. G. Plant
	J. Kwan
	P. Nettleton

B. Kerr: When I first got elected, there were a few things I put on my agenda that I wanted to accomplish within my first term. Firstly, I wanted to have some safety improvements on the Malahat highway that I thought were very important. I wanted to get a breakwater into my little area of Cowichan Bay to improve that area. The next major thing was getting sewers into Sooke, because that would certainly help Sooke develop. I wanted to increase funding for transition houses, and I wanted to do what I call the circle route from Port Renfrew to Cowichan Lake so that people could go from Victoria to Cowichan Lake.

I'm pleased to say that I'm four for five in that issue. The one issue that I haven't been able to get done yet — I've still got one more year to go on the first term — is to get what I call the circle route. I thought that would be a slam dunk. I thought it would be so easy because of the beneficial effects that it would have on tourism. It just seemed to be so easy. Other people recognized the difficulty of it and told me they've been trying to do this for years, up to eight to ten years. One very, very strong NDP supporter came up to me and said: "Mr. Kerr, if you can get that done, I'll vote for you." I said: "Whoa, okay, there's a challenge for me to try to get that done now." It's been a lot more difficult than what I thought. Yet the benefits for this to tourism and to my community are huge.

I'd just like to take a trip, if I could, on that circle route. Maybe "circle route" isn't the right word. Maybe it doesn't have enough cachet. Let me call it the "wilderness wine tour." That's really what we're talking about — a wilderness wine tour, where you can transition from going up the west coast of Vancouver Island over to the warm, sunny climate of the Cowichan Valley and through the wineries and back down to Victoria.

Assuming we're starting from Victoria, we would drive out to Sooke along the west coast. In Sooke we can visit the Sooke Potholes, which some of you are becoming familiar with now, or East Sooke Regional Park, which is a beautiful park that overlooks the Juan de Fuca Strait. If we're looking for a down-home meal, we can go to Mom's Cafe in Sooke, which is very famous, for those of you who've been out there. If we really wanted to go out, we could have a very, very fine meal at Sooke Harbour House, which is famous and caters to people from all over the world.

From Sooke as a starting point, we would drive out the west coast then. We would go out to Jordan River. In Jordan River we'd see surfers. Actually, that's a good surfing area for people on the west coast. A lot of people — young fellows, and girls too — from Victoria go out to Jordan River or even Sombrio Beach, which is another really good surfing area. It's something that's unusual. You get the real thrust of the west coast waves coming in on the Juan de Fuca Strait. It's actually a magnificent, beautiful place to be.

Then we end up in Port Renfrew. Port Renfrew is a small fishing and logging community. There's very little there right now. There's a restaurant; there's a pub. That's about it. Port Renfrew is actually the start — or the finish, if you will — of the world-famous West Coast Trail. There's also another trail that begins there, and that's the Juan de Fuca Trail. It's a little less challenging, but nonetheless, if you're looking for nature and some wilderness and some rugged terrain, you could try either the West Coast Trail or the Juan de Fuca Trail.

People come from all over the world to go on the West Coast Trail. They start, quite often, at the other end of the Carmanah Valley and come down. When they finish in Port Renfrew, there's nothing much there for them. We need something to create an impetus to create some more infrastructure there so that when people finish the very rugged West Coast Trail, they can pamper themselves with maybe a massage and a fine meal.

That needs critical mass to do that. I think one of the ways to get critical mass is by getting some rubber traffic up that way. After going up the west coast — it's about two hours from Victoria — that's it. You have to stop, and you have to turn around and come back. Here's what I'd like to see happen.

There are 52 kilometres of logging road that takes you into Lake Cowichan. I would like to see that 52 kilometres of logging road turned into a live logging museum, where people will go up the road — they'll pay a $20 toll or whatever — and get either a CD or a tape for their car, put it in, and they can drive through this live logging road where they can see how our logging is done in British Columbia. As you go along, the tape can tell people what's happening, how our reforestation is working. They can have large pieces of equipment there and describe what the equipment is used for. This would become a real tourist event. You're in your own car, and it would be…. We take it for granted when we see the trees on the west coast, but people from the Prairies, people from Europe, people from Japan have never seen it before. They've heard about logging, but they've never seen how it actually works.

That trip is actually a beautiful trip. They can pay their money, they can learn about our logging, and they can learn about our forestry practices and how environmentally sound they are. Then they could finish their trip in Lake Cowichan, the warm country.

It wouldn't end there, because Highway 17 is a beautiful highway, and that could take them down into

the Cowichan Valley into the wine area. Right now there are seven wineries in that area. I'd just like to name them, in case anybody would like to go. There's the Chateau Wolf, Zanatta winery, Godfrey-Brownell Vineyards, Echo Valley Vineyards, Blue Grouse Vineyards, Cherry Point Vineyards and then Merridale Ciderworks. All of those things you can get to by driving down Highway 1.

It's something people should consider. By doing this, they're not turning and redoing their own route. They're actually going in a circle, and that's where I got this circle route. On the way down, they can go over the Malahat, where we have improved the safety. They can stop at the luxury Aerie Resort, a world-famous resort, and pamper themselves there, or they can take a completely different route. They can take the Mill Bay–Brentwood Bay ferry across onto the Saanich Peninsula and go to some of the wineries there and Butchart Gardens.

This opens up a whole new area of tourism in the south Island and on the coast for British Columbians, for people from Canada and from all over the world. It's something I would love to see happen, and I will be working toward that as the one final thing I want to get done in my first term.

One of my colleagues from Victoria–Beacon Hill has some words on tourism, and I'm going to give the floor over to him right now so he can comment.

J. Bray: I'd like to congratulate the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca for being such a good advocate for what is really another example of how we can create additional tourism infrastructure to create new products for our tourists to come to on Vancouver Island. As many people know, those of us on Vancouver Island in this Legislature often talk about the fact that Victoria has now been named the best city in the Americas and the best island in the Americas by Condé Nast magazine. We already have a world-class destination, and when we get creative ideas for extending the types of tourism opportunities for people to come and visit us, I think it's very exciting.

There is a whole new area on Vancouver Island in tourism, which the member has talked about with his idea around a circle route, and that is agritourism. It is one of those areas that is really exciting for many of our tourists who come from large urban centres to be able to go and travel into the country in relative ease and to actually see working farms and working wineries. We have a world-class cider operation in the member's riding.

These are incredible opportunities for people to sample, to see and to take with them something that's different than just going to Butchart Gardens or the Inner Harbour. It adds, in terms of tourism, the opportunity to extend people's trips on Vancouver Island. As our tourism operators tell us, every opportunity we can get to keep a tourist in Victoria or on Vancouver Island for one more night means jobs for working families. That means opportunities for additional retailers and entrepreneurs to be able to provide service to those tourists.

I think a circle route that takes people from Victoria around a world-class and very multi-faceted route and back into Victoria on the same day is really an exciting opportunity. What we're really talking about in this infrastructure is 52 kilometres of road. When we get citizens coming forward to MLAs with creative solutions and suggestions of where government can be partners, I think that's very exciting.

Certainly, the Cowichan Valley that the member mentioned is one of the areas that I see really growing with their opportunities for agritourism. Not only are there the number of wineries that the member has mentioned, but there are also other fascinating working operations that are terrific places for families to go visit. Last year I did a tour of the islands with my family — a tour of island farms — and one of the places we stopped was an emu farm.

We spent an hour on a working emu farm up in the Cowichan Valley. Now, that was fascinating for us and fascinating for our daughter, but we also stopped in a local restaurant and ate. We also stopped in the local gas station and filled up our gas tank. Simply by having a tourism event for locals, we provided impetus for other local businesses to be able to benefit.

When we see opportunities like this to increase the number of tourists who come to Vancouver Island or to increase the time they stay in Victoria, it doesn't just benefit the Cowichan Valley or benefit the wineries or the farms that are part of agritourism. It, in fact, benefits all the other businesses that rely on that tourism traffic, so I'm very excited to hear from the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca about this.

I know, as someone who is a local person, that if that opportunity were available for me and my family, we'd be some of the first people to drive up the west coast into Port Renfrew, through to Lake Cowichan and then back down along the Cowichan Valley and the Malahat. I know that could be the type of thing that could be marketed by the Cowichan chamber of commerce and by the Port Renfrew and Jordan River communities as a way to attract new tourists to their area to support their local businesses or their working families.

That's the type of thing that I think our tourism operators are looking for and creating. I'm very excited by it, and I'm very pleased to be able to respond to the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca, who is promoting a positive piece of tourism infrastructure that could benefit communities all around that circle route.

B. Kerr: I'd like to thank the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill for his comments. It shows that I'm not the only one who's wanting this circle route. My colleague from Alberni-Qualicum has come to me to say: "Hey, what about us? We've been trying to do this for 14 years." They've been holding a cavalcade for the 14 years to take this route, to extend it from Cowichan right to Port Alberni and back. Clearly, there's a lot of desire to get this happening to increase tourism. I commend my colleague from Alberni-Qualicum because she has been on top of it, and she came into the

House here to make sure I got that plug in for their route also. I agree with it.

I should say that we are going to be doing something. We are having meetings. We're going to be meeting on May 19 with the mayors from the various communities. I believe the mayor from Port Alberni will there. Jack Peake, the mayor of Cowichan Lake, will be there. The federal Liberal MPs will be there. This logging road goes through TFL 46. The licensee now is J.S. Jones, and they'll have their representatives there.

I'm hoping this will come to fruition so that Victoria, southern Vancouver Island and all the people in this area will benefit from it.

L. Mayencourt: I'm pleased to stand today in the House to address an issue of importance to the people of British Columbia, an issue of significant economic consequence. Yes, it's about jobs. It's about revenue, sustainability and the environment. It's also about more than that. It's about our future and the future prosperity of British Columbia as well as the well-being of British Columbians.

The start of my day today was probably similar to many of the members here. I got up, enjoyed a refreshingly hot shower, made a cup of coffee, walked over to the Legislature, powered up my computer and started answering e-mails. I — indeed we, Mr. Speaker — couldn't have done any of these ordinary daily activities without the energy-producing oil, gas and hydro resources we enjoy here in B.C. today. We are huge consumers of power. While we produce 16 million barrels of oil each year, we consume 55 million barrels. That's a huge gap between supply and demand.

Allow me to tell you why I've come to feel so passionate about energy and its economic impact on B.C., including those who live outside of our resource-based communities in the lower mainland or in my riding of Vancouver-Burrard. As part of its oil and gas development strategy, the province commissioned a task force to investigate the many aspects of this initiative, including the development of offshore oil and gas. I was the only urban MLA to serve on that task force, which was made up of members who live and work in our coastal communities.

We got to visit many B.C. communities. These visits allowed us to hear about the hopes and dreams of the people who live there, to learn firsthand about their vision and to witness their industriousness. However, some of what I saw and heard was not always comforting or encouraging.

There is a cargo terminal in Prince Rupert with row after row of forklifts sitting idle in the storage yards. It's heartbreaking. Every one of those forklifts means a lost job and a lost dream in another of our resource communities. Heartbreak is a difficult thing, but even more so is the loss of hope.

His Holiness the Dalai Lama, who visited Vancouver recently, teaches us that he who has hope has everything. It is a duty of this government to bring back hope to each and every one of our resource communities. Fortunately, the proverbial, if not provincial, opportunity is knocking at our door. The opportunity lies in the enormous offshore reserves of crude oil and natural gas that lie beneath our ocean floor — more than ten billion barrels of oil and 42 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Access to this resource represents an unprecedented bonanza like nothing else in B.C.'s history.

Revenue from these industries helps to fund our education system, health care, child care and other services, and even though we have increased health care and education spending to record levels, we all recognize that there is a demand for more. Responsible development of the offshore oil and gas areas will enable us to address these growing demands for increased funding and for other programs and services that matter the most to British Columbians.

Responsible development begins with our strategic plan and an obligation to conduct any offshore exploration and development according to the best science available. New science is helping us to move forward.

The moratorium on offshore oil and gas has accomplished the job it set out to do 20 years ago, as science and oil and gas exploration have grown substantially. In February of this year a team of Canadian scientists, commissioned by the federal government under the auspices of the Royal Society of Canada, completed their review. It concluded that: "Provided an adequate regulatory regime is put in place, there are no science gaps that need to be filled before lifting the moratoria on oil and gas development."

This is the door we need to open to move forward. We can do that by building on the work undertaken by the task force. We will continue to talk with and listen to energy workers, business owners, more scientists and community leaders from across B.C., including our first nations people. The focus of our conversations will be with the people who live in our coastal communities that will drive this next wave of prosperity in B.C.

In addition to sharing revenue, we want to share responsibility. We'll do that by making sure that first nations play a vital role in the management and regulation of any offshore oil and gas development, and we will work with first nations to ensure their benefits include skills training, jobs and infrastructure.

Technology will play an important role along with advances in science, and we're ready in that sphere too. Canadian futurologist Frank Ogden, in talking about technology ten years ago, said: "Become an outlaw. Grab the latest technology and run with it. When they do catch you, you'll be in charge."

We've done that. Our alternative energy technology is among the best in the world. Ballard fuel cells have helped to put B.C. on the cutting edge of clean, safe energy technology. We're creating a groundbreaking hydrogen highway from Vancouver to Whistler that will be on display for everyone to see during the Winter Olympics. Other energy technologies are also being explored, from independent run-of-the-river hydro to biomass and wind power. We also have human capital.

There are British Columbians who work all around the world in the offshore oil and gas industry. Let's bring them home, so the whole province can benefit from their skills and expertise.

What all this says is that B.C. is well-positioned to face the dynamic changes that are coming our way over the next 20 years. We have an opportunity to step forward as a world leader in oil and gas technology, development standards, environmental sustainability and energy innovation.

This is an extraordinary opportunity for an extraordinary province, but we can't do it alone. We need the federal government on board as a partner, and we're going to make sure that's a win-win for our communities, the industry sector, the people of Canada and the people of our province.

This government is committed to making B.C. number one again on every front. Our plans for offshore oil and gas will do exactly that. With the leadership of our Premier, the support of this government and our peoples, B.C. will continue to be the best place in the world to live, work and play in all areas of our province.

B. Belsey: I'd like to thank my colleague from Vancouver-Burrard, who's offered me the opportunity to respond to his comments.

As part of my reply, I'd like to comment on the morning activities that the member shared with us — about how he got up, had a pot of coffee, had a shower, rode an elevator downstairs, caught a cab, rode in a plane to Victoria, caught another cab to the Legislature, picked up a muffin and started his day. Well, he was absolutely right when he said that I — indeed, we — couldn't have done these ordinary daily activities without the energy produced by oil and gas.

So often there seems to be this disconnect between our day-to-day activities and the benefits from oil and gas. The alarm clock that probably woke my colleague up this morning, if it's anything like mine, is made almost entirely of plastic — plastic that is made possible through the derivatives of oil and gas. The hot shower that he enjoyed — most likely that water was heated by one of the cleanest-burning fuels available to mankind, natural gas. The coffee that he made this morning was probably or could have been heated by a gas-burning stove. Most assuredly, the glass container was made possible through the use and the burning of natural gas. Probably the handle of that coffee pot, a lot like the alarm clock that I mentioned earlier, was made of plastic.

He spoke about riding an elevator. I challenge all of you, the next time you get in an elevator, to look around. Look at the walls, the signs, the buttons, the paint, the floors and even some of that advertising on the walls. It all contains by-products from oil and gas. The cab to the floatplane base — we all accept that the engine was powered by hydrocarbons and that they require oil to run those engines. But few consider that the hundreds, possibly the thousands of parts in our cars are now made of plastic — plastic that comes from the refineries and the chemical plants, plastics that are made possible by oil and gas. The same holds true for the planes we fly in — powered by oil products, lubricated by oil products. It's not likely that anytime in the near future that is going to change. As for the cab he grabbed from the Victoria floatplane base to the Legislature, I think he should have walked. It's a nice day, and it probably would have done him well.

I would like to share with you a little story, and I'm sure my colleague will give me that opportunity. I was walking back from the floatplane base to the Legislature the other day, and I was reflecting on a recent presentation I had made about oil and gas. Following the presentation, there was a young fellow that strolled to the mike to ask a question. He had dyed hair. I think it was red and blue. He had body-piercing jewellery. He had some jewellery around his neck. He had a bag over his shoulder, a water bottle hanging from his hip.

He spent some time chastising me about my position for supporting the development of oil and gas. I couldn't help but think that this young fellow is a walking billboard for the mining and the petrochemical industries. The dye in his hair; the metal, piercing parts; the jewellery around his neck; some of the clothes he wore; the water bottle — they all contained parts and derivatives of the oil and gas industry.

The way he was dressed was perfectly fine. I have a son, a daughter and grandchildren, and from time to time they've been that colourful. I recognized a little bit of the apparel he wore. I lived through the sixties and seventies, and I'm sure if you dig in the bottom of some of the trunks, you might find some of it.

My point, and the point my colleague was making, is that the products from oil and gas are important to our everyday lives. We must recognize the development of the offshore oil and gas industry in British Columbia as we are large consumers of oil and gas. This province has learned in studying the potential for oil and gas. We must understand what it does for our lives. We'll always have this conflict between the love of nature and the deep dependence on the oil and gas technology. It will always garner great debate in this House and in many meetings around the province.

Again, I want to thank the Speaker and the member for giving me this opportunity.

L. Mayencourt: I want to first thank the member for North Coast for his colourful comments.

We're all proud of the rich and unique heritage of British Columbia that has been built from its natural resources. Communities like Prince Rupert, Fort St. John, Bella Coola and Prince George have provided the foundation that has helped to make B.C. the best place in the world to live. The oil and gas industry got its start in the Peace River country more than 40 years ago, and today it is one of the most important economic drivers in all of B.C.

Because we are such large consumers of energy, we are also large importers of gasoline and fossil fuel

products. That means that every dollar we spend that leaves this province is a dollar that doesn't contribute to the prosperity of British Columbians. We know that prosperity can be an elusive thing. We have seen and felt the impact of industry booms and busts by the softwood lumber dispute, mad cow disease, avian flu, mountain pine beetles and the devastating 2003 wildfires. While my constituents in Vancouver-Burrard feel the after-effects that arise because of the increase in the cost of products, we know that such events have serious consequences for our fellow citizens living in resource-dependent communities.

An opportunity to bring prosperity back to many of our coastal communities and to generate revenue that will benefit all of B.C. is available now. Now is the time to take advantage of this extraordinary opportunity that lies beneath our ocean floor. Now is the time to expand the promise of oil and gas enjoyed by the people of the Peace River country to the people of our coastal communities. We now have solid scientific technology, information and data and the experience of others to guide us.

There are over 6,000 producing wells between Alaska, California and the Gulf of Mexico. The U.K., Brazil, Australia, New Zealand, China, the Philippines, Russia and Norway are all actively involved in offshore development. Closer to home, Ontario, Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and areas of Canada's arctic all have offshore development taking place. Imagine how much we can learn from the experiences of our sister provinces and other countries.

One aspect alone is worth noting. As of March of last year, more than 3,000 people were working on three offshore projects in Newfoundland. Applying the typical multiplier for spinoff jobs in the industry means that approximately 9,000 additional jobs were created. Imagine what that could mean for British Columbia. Imagine what it could mean for our coastal communities.

This is also a chance to safeguard the interest of current and future generations. We need young British Columbians to become our next generation of plumbers, electricians, doctors and teachers. We need kids to know that they have a stable, hopeful, prosperous future ahead of them. That's why I began my remarks today by noting that responsible development of our offshore oil and gas is about more than economic impact of jobs, revenue, sustainability and the environment. It's about our future.

G. Trumper: I know the subject that I'm going to talk about today — part of health care — is something which is front and centre in people's minds these days. I want to talk about another part of health care.

As British Columbia and every province in Canada struggle with the increasing demands on health care, the focus is always on hospitals, the need for health professionals, the aging population and the challenges that come with it. For today these are still considered the major issues, but we must look at what we as individuals and society can do to promote preventative health care.

Preventative health care is not the hot button that gets the attention of politicians, health care professionals and the media. But if we do not attend to this issue, it will become the hot button. We know, going back many years, many of the programs that many of us have benefited from…. I can tell you that probably like many others of my generation, I have scars on my arms and legs from smallpox vaccinations taken many years ago. Vaccinations that we had for childhood diseases…. Today the majority of us are living and healthy compared to before we had those vaccinations, when we lost so many small children and young people to those vicious diseases. I think there are many of us who can still remember the years in the 1950s when we had polio and iron lungs. A couple of friends of mine were in those iron lungs for the reasons that there were not enough preventative health care measures in dealing with those particular issues.

Today statistics tell us that as a population we are overweight, we do not exercise enough, and our diets are not healthy. Heart disease and diabetes are on the rise. My father-in-law was a physician. As a matter of fact, he was the fourth generation of physicians in his family. He came to Canada in 1960 for the first time. The first comment he made as he looked around Alberta, which was where we were living at the time, was that he had never seen so many overweight people.

In North America today obesity is a disease, and certainly in Canada we could probably say the same. Children today are developing diabetes type 2, which up until now was seen mainly in the over-50 group. Generally speaking, our children are not as active as they used to be for all sorts of reasons: television, video games — all those things that seem to have our children leading somewhat sedentary lives, which all add to the creation of unfit young children. Gone are the days, too, in many cases, when young people walked or biked to school. This is for a variety of reasons, including the safety of our children today as we worry about them when they are on the streets and away from the sight of our own homes.

Physical education in schools today has become an option at certain levels. I believe it should be compulsory, or if students participate in sport activities outside school hours, that should be counted as credits for them.

It is not only for their physical well-being but for their mental health and well-being as well. Scientific evidence has demonstrated that physical activity plays a key role in promoting optimal health and development in children and youth, and that goes a long way to preventing disease, disability and premature death.

We do know that today there are so many diseases with our lifestyles that appear to be increasing, diseases we weren't aware of 40 years ago or 60 years ago.

The stage today is that we are living longer, but as we are living longer, we are also developing more chronic diseases and causing more issues for the health programs.

Scientific evidence has demonstrated that physical activity plays a key role for everyone in our society. It is encouraging to see that today we are seeing more people — particularly in British Columbia, which seems to have taken on a life of its own — taking part in physical activity throughout the province, although certainly in some places in the province, instead of fresh air, they're walking in the malls. I think in places such as Prince George and the northern parts of British Columbia, maybe it is a little inclement at certain times of the year for people to be walking outside, and you can imagine there might be some problems at times.

Our lifestyles today are not conducive to good health and to leading healthy lifestyles. In the U.S. chronic diseases in early two-thousands caused 70 percent of the deaths in America, and the cases of diabetes nearly doubled in the last decade. Poor nutrition, lack of activity and tobacco use take more time and resources from state health departments than any other responsibilities in the United States, and I am sure that is happening here.

We now have the ever-increasing problem with drug use in Canada, particularly amongst our young people. You know, Mr. Speaker, unless we can get a handle on that in some way, it is going to overtake even other issues within the health care system.

We have to address the issues now, because if we continue on this road, the demands on health care in the future will be out of control. We need to have more education programs, not only in the health system. We need to have recreation programs in communities to encourage physical activity at all ages. We need to have programs in public health and in school systems to teach good nutrition. We need to have health professionals, who now treat illness and sickness, put an emphasis on preventative health care and wellness and on teaching ways of dealing with chronic disease, enabling people to live useful lives, to be independent and to be as healthy as possible as they grow older.

As I've said before, there are certain things we have taken for granted in the past, such as water, the health of water, immunization and vaccination, and a whole pile of issues in preventative health care. I'm very pleased this morning to have the Minister of State for Mental Health and Addiction Services speak to this issue.

Hon. S. Brice: I first want to commend the member for Alberni-Qualicum for raising this important issue in the House and to thank the member for allowing me to respond, to have another chance to bang the drum for this important aspect of health care. It's sensible, it's good for the public, it's good for health care, and it's good for our health budgets. So why doesn't it happen?

Well, it doesn't happen because the tyranny of the urgent in health care continually draws all of the dollars to those critical health care issues. We must stop the way it is going and redirect some of those moneys to preventative work.

In response to the member's statement, I would like to focus on three areas in particular that the member raised. One is inactivity; the other, tobacco; and then mental health as well.

What we call health care, of course, as the member points out, is really sickness care. What we talk about as health centres are really sickness centres. Health centres are rec centres, swimming pools, hiking trails, golf courses. Those are where people go to get healthy. It's turning that shift so that we start acknowledging that health care is far bigger than just what we see wrapped up in what we call the traditional health care system.

I look forward to the day when a physician, rather than picking up a prescription pad to write a prescription for drugs, would say to her patient, "You know, what you really should do is get a ticket for 20 swims at the rec centre," or she might say: "You know, what you really should do to make yourself healthy is go out and invest in a good pair of walking shoes." I think that physician would be giving her patient fabulous advice. She could then work on building her own health up to the point where there would be far less use of the health care system.

Children's inactivity, obesity, type 2 diabetes — we see this looming. We as responsible adults, as the society that has made sure kids wear bike helmets when they're out, who are in a car seat when they're in their automobile — all of these things we as a society have acknowledged — need to do things to protect our youngsters, and yet we look at a group of young people who are sitting ducks for type 2 diabetes and all of the hideous health care issues that will flow from it.

I, like the member, believe that physical activity is too important to be considered optional in our school system. It must be mandatory throughout, it must be monitored, and it must be good activity — not just hanging around and waiting to take part and standing in a lineup.

Tobacco — another huge issue the member touches on. Tobacco, and tobacco-related illness and its impact on the health care system, is huge. We in British Columbia have a lot to be proud of. Our numbers are better than anywhere else in the country, but we must not let up. We have to acknowledge that those who are selling tobacco products recognize that the group of people in the 22-to-28-year age bracket are starting to fall into the trap of once again turning to tobacco pro-ducts. Not content to have our good works wait, the tobacco companies are injecting the use of tobacco products in things like movies. It's acknowledged now when you watch movies — way more opportunities for young people to see people using tobacco products. We must keep diligent on this.

It was just with real joy that I read in the local press that CFB Esquimalt has gone smoke-free in single quarters. CFB Esquimalt has shown real leadership. We

must make sure that in homes and in automobiles where there are young children, people refrain from using tobacco. Secondhand smoke is not at all good for our children.

So with that, my time is up, but I must acknowledge that today is the beginning of Mental Health Week — strong mental health, strong physical health…. I thank the member for raising this issue this morning.

G. Trumper: I thank the minister for her words. In preventative health care, Shelley Hearne, the director of the Trust for America's Health — which is a non-profit research organization — says that the disease of the day is a disease to health. For instance, did you know that thousands of women can learn about proper prenatal care for less money than it takes to treat one extremely ill newborn child? There are many women who still do not get prenatal care.

When programs for preventive health care do their job well, perhaps the results are invisible today, but in the future preventative health care programs will reap great results. We know so many people are beginning to understand the implications of preventative health care. We must continue to push for a greater emphasis on preventative health care programs today so that all of us can benefit from them tomorrow.

V. Roddick: The Minister of Transportation has been charged with pulling together a comprehensive workable transportation plan for the province — something that has never been done before. Transportation initiatives have tended to be piecemeal and politically expedient. We live in a global economy. As a province we have to be able to, just in time, deliver everything we produce — be it raw resources or the perfectly packaged potato chip.

Transportation is vital to B.C.'s economy. The transportation network sustains 44 percent of the province's GDP and sustains approximately one million jobs in B.C. According to the Ministry of Transportation's own website, $81 billion worth of goods move on B.C.'s highways and ferry systems through our international airports, borders and seaports. Air, marine, rail and truck transportation has to be fully integrated with the appropriate infrastructure in place. This cannot be done by the province alone. We need to work with the federal government, private enterprise, local government and first nations.

British Columbia is the Pacific gateway to Canada, with numerous portals up and down the coast. Our government has pledged to expand B.C. as a gateway to the world and to expand our transportation infrastructure. At the same time, it is committed to supporting our communities, their economics, tourism and businesses. Delta South is a crossroads to everywhere. It is the constituency everyone drives through to get somewhere else.

Transportation corridors cut through 22,000 acres of prime farmland in the ALR, the villages of Tsawwassen and Ladner, and the Tsawwassen first nation. Truck traffic moves from Fraser Port through Delta North, down River Road and Highway 17 to Roberts Bank container port, which is expected to triple in size in the very near future. Containers move by rail from other parts of B.C. and of Canada to Roberts Bank. Freighters unload and load their cargo at Deltaport and further up the Fraser River at the Fraser-Surrey docks.

Obviously, there is a pressing need in the not too distant future to connect the two ports by a transportation system that will extend to the Trans-Canada Highway. B.C. Ferries transports people, goods and merchandise to Vancouver Island through the Tsawwassen ferry terminal, which is one of the busiest ferry terminals and is slated for reconfiguration and redevelopment.

Highway 99, the main artery between Vancouver and the U.S., slices through Delta South down to the Canada–U.S. border. We are home to Boundary Bay Airport, Tilbury Island industrial park, Annacis Island industrial park and the Alex Fraser Bridge. They are all part of our municipality. These transportation corridors, each and every one of them, have been imposed on Delta South and the municipality of Delta. They have had and will continue to have a substantial impact on our way of life.

In the middle of our riding and municipality are the world-renowned Burns Bog and the Reifel bird sanctuary. Delta South is also on the Pacific joint flyway, and our farmers feed and house millions of migratory birds in their fields. When our government promises a provincial transportation plan, we need a system that respects the integrity of our municipalities and the people who live and work and — despite our harried world — hopefully have some time to play in them as well.

Delta South is a perfect example of a municipality trying to maintain a healthy way of life to sustain an agricultural and fishing community with a long pioneering history while responding to the challenges of economic growth and expansion all through and around us. We want to contribute, and we want to be included, but we do not want to be overrun. Delta South can be a model for the province as we work to build a B.C. transportation plan that combines people and their communities with economic growth and prosperity.

The Delta Chamber of Commerce is working on a sustainable community economic strategy that includes a transportation assessment component. The chamber is looking at short-, medium- and long-term solutions that include affordable ideas such as the use of the HOV lane on Highway 17 to allow access to River Road during rush hours and the relocation of the information centre and truck scales on the Richmond side of the tunnel to the billion-dollar public-private south perimeter road proposal.

Collaboration with local talent is well worth the effort. It incorporates the human element and provides the design engineer's local input that will ward off future headaches. We need to bring people together to be part of the solution. Change may be inevitable, but we can make the decision to participate in making choices that strengthen our communities.

Investment in planning must be commensurate with the level of proposed activity. To encourage people to think, plan and participate in our communities, we must start defining and articulating our community goals and values not only locally but as part of the province and of the country. I look forward to the Minister of Transportation's comments on these issues.

Hon. K. Falcon: I'd like to thank the member for Delta South for her comments with respect to transportation. She accurately pointed out that Delta is indeed an important transportation hub not just for the lower mainland but really for the entire provincial economy.

The success of our economy, of course, both locally and provincially, depends on a safe, effective and affordably efficient transportation network. Between our international ports and airports, our highways, railways and border crossings, approximately $81 billion worth of goods moves through British Columbia each year, as the member for Delta South pointed out. In fact, Delta South sees a significant portion of that, as Delta South is home to the Boundary Bay Airport, the Delta Port, Roberts Bank, B.C. Ferries and an important highway corridor, Highway 99, which travels from the U.S. border through to Vancouver and right up to Whistler.

If every truck, ship, train and airplane links easily to its destination, we can fulfil a higher demand for B.C. products and, in turn, get these products to market more quickly. Not only will that mean higher productivity and higher profits for businesses across the province, but it also means more investment opportunities for the province, as companies and individuals will look at B.C. as an important place in which to do business and trade their goods.

That's why our government and our Premier are so committed to ensuring that British Columbia has the integrated transportation network that we need. That's why we've implemented a $1.3 billion comprehensive transportation plan over the next three years that will spread 85 percent of that investment throughout the heartlands of the great province of British Columbia.

The member knows that B.C. exports more than $21 billion worth of goods just south of the border, most of that shipped by trucks through border crossings in the lower mainland. They are met with, in many cases, very significant and serious traffic delays. The B.C. Trucking Association estimates that trucks are stopped or slowed 75 percent of the time. That's costing the trucking industry an estimated $60 million a year. Not only does the congestion increase the potential for accidents, but it also keeps us from getting our goods to market. That has an impact on the lives of working British Columbians.

We need to get those trucks moving. We need to get those goods moving. With the help of our federal partners, we're implementing $241 million — almost a quarter of a billion dollars — of transportation improvements at our border crossings. This will improve our key corridors, like Highway 15 from the Douglas crossing to the Trans-Canada Highway. We're improving a number of intersections, like 91 and 91A, which will make some significant improvements.

It's not just improvements for trucks. It means improvements for residents; it means improvements for tourists. All of that is going to make a real difference in getting products from the agricultural and industrial community in Delta South to the consumers south of the border.

It's important to recognize that congestion not only impacts the ability to move product but also impacts our economy in ways we don't always fully realize. Congestion is a problem that is only going to get worse if we do nothing. Doing nothing is actually a decision. If the government chooses to do nothing, we've made a decision that we're going to see a serious problem get worse.

The greater Vancouver area, the gateway region which includes Delta South, is unique to B.C. in that it brings together — as I mentioned earlier — the railways, highways, border crossing, ports, airports, ferries and a cruise ship facility. It is truly the transportation hub of the province, and as such, it's going to be a key economic hub as well.

After a decade of neglect, the region's infrastructure is no longer equipped to be able to manage the kind of traffic we have today and the future demands we know we're going to see tomorrow in our growing economy — just for an example, average commuting distances. Although average commuting distances for most folks in the lower mainland have remained constant, the travel times in which to make those same commuting distances have increased by almost a third.

Mr. Speaker, 2.1 million people currently make five million to six million trips per day on gateway corridors, only 11 percent of those by transit. We know that by 2021, the population of the lower mainland is going to grow by another third. That means that without improvements, we estimate that just in the next six or seven years, drivers will spend 30 percent more time in their vehicles than they do now if we don't make any changes.

That congestion costs us, and the cost is unacceptable. So our ministry has been working with local governments, we've been working with regional transportation authorities, and we've been working with groups right across the lower mainland to ensure that we examine those challenges, examine those costs and try to come up with solutions. As the constituents in Delta South are likely aware, the south perimeter road indeed is part of that project and part of the possible solutions to some of the challenges we face. This project is designed….

Hon. K. Falcon: Thank you for the cheers. The Leader of the Opposition is commending me for this, and I appreciate that.

I guess the important thing to recognize is that as we go through that process, the member for Delta South wants to ensure that we have collaboration and cooperation. I can assure the member, as I assured her mayor, that we look forward to working together with local government, with the chambers of commerce and all the stakeholders to ensure that we have the most efficient, effective transportation system in the lower mainland.

V. Roddick: I thank the minister for those detailed comments. It is a necessity to have an integrated transportation plan. The communities are the foundation of our province, and those residents are extremely important to all of us and need to be taken into consideration. I appreciate your comments along those lines.

Last fall I attended a forum on economic development that included mayors, MLAs, councillors, chambers of commerce, our counterparts from Washington State and other groups to discuss community sustainability and regional economic opportunities. Transportation was one of the major topics for discussion. All jurisdictions — provincial, municipal, federal, GVRD — need to get the lead out and create a workable transportation plan. We are opening our doors to the world in 2010. Let's make damn sure it's not idling bumper to bumper at the Massey Tunnel.

Hon. members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 114 without disturbing the priorities of the motions preceding it on the order paper.

J. MacPhail: I move Motion 114 standing on the order paper in my name, which reads as follows:

It's a motion that I wrote in the positive. It would have been extremely easy to write a negative motion that, of course, this government would attack the opposition for and that would let them off the hook for dealing with what's really occurring with first nations in this province in relationship to the sale of B.C. Rail. When there is a vote on this, this government has the opportunity to stand up and defend its honesty, defend its clarity and then vote. Let's see how well they can do that.

Here's what the B.C. Rail deal means for first nations, and here's why first nations are so concerned about the lack of straightforwardness that this government has dealt with them on this sale. Here's why first nations are so concerned about this government's inability to be clear with first nations on a range of topics. I'll give evidence that first nations feel like they have been treated with no respect by this government.

Oh, the government will stand up and say what great strides forward they've made in the last three years compared to the previous ten years. No one is buying that. Absolutely no one is buying it. There are two groups particularly not buying it: the first nations themselves and the business community. The business community doesn't believe that this government has done anything with regard to settling first nations matters in order to achieve economic stability. It's still the most important issue amongst business investors — the settlement of land claims and the recognition of aboriginal rights — and the business community is still nervous about the instability, the lack of clarity, the lack of respect and the lack of straightforwardness.

What does the B.C. Rail deal do for first nations? Well, B.C. Rail as it stands now runs through 25 first nations traditional territories. Here are the facts that the first nations are aware of. There will be a new operator running over reserves and through traditional lands. This operator will no longer be the Crown. The operator will be present for a substantive period of time — from 90 to 990 years. First nations also learned that the deal allows for the sale of Crown land to a private company for $1. After five years of this agreement, CN can discontinue operations for any routes it sees fit and then buy up the rights and title to that discontinued land for a dollar. This is the Crown land that could have been used for treaty negotiation.

As we all know, the referendum principles approved in 2002 do not allow private properties to be used for settlement resolution. This deal changes what lands are up for treaty negotiation behind the backs of first nations that are directly affected by the deal. I anticipate greatly the Attorney General's explanation of how that's not the case.

First nations have sought legal opinions over the last few weeks that emphasize that point. But of course, we know this Attorney General doesn't have any hesitation to attack first nations in courts, waste millions of taxpayer dollars attacking the Nisga'a settlement, voting against it, holding up the Legislature. Then when they get in office, they let themselves off the hook for that silly legal challenge this Attorney General brought forward when he was in opposition, wasting millions of tax dollars. He gets in office, and then he says: "Oh, I'm going to let that group off the hook from paying any of those legal costs." Turns out he was letting himself off the hook, as he attacked the legal rights of first nations.

We're somehow going to believe anything that Attorney General says about first nations rights? I don't

think so. He has zero respect in his relationships with first nations — zero respect when he went to court to sue the Nisga'a and when he voted against the Nisga'a treaty along with the rest of his government.

The change in who operates B.C. Rail and who owns the land is substantive and, in my view, triggers this government's obligation to fully consult with first nations by showing them the details of the B.C. Rail deal. However, in order to sidestep their duty to consult with first nations, the government claims it will continue to retain ownership of the railbed and rights-of-way. But this, in reality, is not the case, since the leaked revitalization agreement discusses selling the publicly owned land to a private company for $1. No matter how much the Minister of Transportation claims they'll have to dance a bunch of dances before they'll be allowed to do that, it is simply not the case in law. After five years this government will sell discontinued lands to CN for $1, and those discontinued lands are subject to treaty negotiations.

However, this government seems to think that a $15 million trust fund for 25 nations over the course of 60 to 990 years fulfils their duties to first nations. Trinkets and beads look like a good deal compared to this first nations trust fund, and first nations are waking up to that now. Actually, first nations have been aware of that for months, Mr. Speaker, and I apologize to the first nations for suggesting that somehow they're only waking up to that now. They have been aware of the lack of respect, the lack of straightforwardness and the lack of honesty that the government has been approaching them with on this first nations trust since it came to light.

Here is what we do know. The consultation for this fund was shaky at best, and when the details of the rail deal were released, first nations began to say: "It isn't on, and we're not going to buy into this." When the initial details of the rail sale were released, first nations said: "Well, let's at least sit down and see what we're being given." But the minute the real details were leaked about this rail deal — the sale; the giveaway of their lands; the sale of Crown land that they will never, ever be able to claim in land claims — they immediately said to the government that it's not on.

Here's what this Liberal government forced the first nations to do, though, before the leaks were out. They said to first nations: "If you want to access the fund, first nations, you have to allow our Liberal government to list you as a participating first nation on the enabling legislation." In fact, the Minister of Transportation, who is responsible for this deal, won't even discuss the first nations trust fund any more in his estimates until the legislation comes in. How's that for not being able to get at the truth? How's that for a government that refuses to come clean and be honest and bring clarity? He refuses to answer questions on the first nations trust fund because legislation is coming in. Meanwhile, they're forcing first nations to sign on as an "aye aye, captain" to this first nations trust fund when that very legislation they're keeping secret is finally introduced. Shameful. Shameful.

The trust fund, which was developed largely by the province without any genuine consultation with first nations, has now resulted in the withdrawal of support for the rail agreement by first nations and could impact broader relationships with first nations communities across the province. Let's be clear: the vast majority of first nations in B.C. are opposed to the sale of B.C. Rail since land and rights questions remain unresolved. No matter how the Attorney General tries to spin it, that sums up first nations' views about the sale of B.C. Rail. In fact, since details of the leaked revitalization agreement were disclosed, first nations have begun to pull out of the trust fund. As well, they have begun to seriously question this government's commitment to open and transparent relationships with first nations.

Since the details have emerged, two first nations have stated that they want to pull out of the first nations trust fund. Now, as far as we're aware, at least five first nations are reconsidering their participation in the trust, and two first nations never agreed to sign on in the first place.

The fact is that the Liberal government thought they could get away with not consulting with first nations on this B.C. Rail sale. First nations are sending a message to their government today that selling B.C. Rail without taking into account the interests of the affected first nations is not going to work, and there will be no clarity, no honesty and no respect until this government meets its legal obligations around the sale of B.C. Rail. The sooner the government realizes this and releases the details of the B.C. Rail deal to the first nations, the better.

But we know this government isn't doing anything that's straightforward and honest around this deal — keeping every document secret, refusing to answer questions in this Legislature and hiding behind their own process, their own ill-fated process. They refuse to release any details. Thank God for leaks, Mr. Speaker. It's the only honest activity surrounding this ill-conceived sale of B.C. Rail.

The government knows that consultation with first nations on the trust fund and the rail deal would obviously require giving the details of the rail deal to the participants in the consultation. That's why this government is being so secretive, so misleading, and they refuse to be straightforward and show the respect — the legal respect — required for first nations. The government continues to purport to be consulting while withholding the crucial details of the deal.

Here's a quote from Chief Garry John of the Seton Lake first nations, which clearly lays out the feeling of first nations. Chief John states: "The B.C. Rail benefits trust fund holds very little opportunity and does absolutely nothing to address the years of impacts faced by our community. It is nothing more than a bit of hush money."

The Seton Lake first nation has been attempting to settle longstanding issues with the province and B.C. Rail. Ninety-three years ago this first nation declared: "We are the rightful owners of our tribal territory and

everything pertaining thereto." In this formal notice to government, the first nation also addresses the trespasses of the railway through the territory. The document states: "We also wish to protest the seizing of our lands for the building of railway depots and sidings." Clearly, this government is sidestepping its duty to resolve these longstanding rail issues.

Telling first nations that this deal is merely a lease is simply inadequate. The fact is that a new operator who is no longer the Crown will be present on some first nations traditional lands for anywhere from 90 to 990 years. What this means for first nations is unclear, and the government is not helping to make it any clearer.

I heard the Attorney General catcall: "Well, it'd be nice if some of those bands would actually get into the treaty process." What has that got to do with anything in answering the concerns of Seton Lake? Is the government somehow allowed to run roughshod over the Seton Lake band and the UBCIC members because they're approaching reconciliation in a fashion different than being in the treaty process — in the members of the Treaty Commission? I can hardly wait for the Attorney General to get up and argue that position legally and somehow not show the continuing disrespect, the lack of honesty and the lack of clarity around that. That was what he catcalled or heckled across the Legislature floor just days ago.

The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs has commissioned a legal review of the B.C. Rail deal and continues to seek legal advice, given the Attorney General's comments. One of their legal opinions so far — one of its findings — was that the government will use the trust fund as a sign of "workable accommodation" in the event of a legal challenge. First nations have good reasons to be skeptical of this government's agenda and their so-called well-meaning attempts at consultation.

Let's just list a couple of things about this government's track record with first nations. As I have said, it's marked with court cases against entrenched treaties. They held a referendum on first nations rights, which placed the rights of the minority in the hands of the majority. It was costly, unnecessary and inflammatory. Opposition to the referendum on aboriginal rights came from all corners — from the federal Minister of Indian Affairs to lawyers who specialize in aboriginal and constitutional law, from academics to representatives of resource industries, from the faith community and from the broad public. Everyone but the B.C. Liberal government understood that a majority vote on minority rights was not only a waste of time and money but also an ill-conceived and illegitimate process that unnecessarily created conflict and would contribute to B.C.'s faltering economy under this government.

Since completing the ill-conceived treaty referendum and then largely ignoring its results, the Liberal government has been keen to demonstrate progress on its negotiations with first nations. The Attorney General embarked on a public relations campaign to compensate for the referendum mistake and the destabilization it caused, the delay in treaty negotiations it caused, trying to persuade voters and investors that his government can bring certainty to the province. Then in September 2003 the Attorney General poisoned the process again when he made an out-of-the-blue, take-it-or-leave-it offer to the Haida nation of 20 percent of Queen Charlotte Islands — a move that succeeded in angering the Haida nation, creating further conflict and skewing all future negotiations with other nations.

Here's another one. In December of last year, in a case involving the Haida and logging of disputed sites, the B.C. Liberal government argued that a provincial statute of limitations can restrict or eliminate compensation claims based on infringements of aboriginal title. Isn't that nice? Isn't that great — the position our Attorney General takes? The result was that first nations all across the province filed writs seeking judicial affirmations on aboriginal rights and title as set out in Delgamuukw. They had to do that because of the ill-conceived, nasty, confrontational comments of the Attorney General. They had to do that to pre-empt any further demonstrations of bad-faith bargaining.

Now we see this government's failed attempt at superficial consultation with first nations over the B.C. Rail deal, and we see that that superficial, wrong-headed, illegal approach is backfiring. Until the Liberal government releases the deal to first nations, along with all British Columbians, and seeks to resolve the longstanding land and rail issues in B.C., the support for this deal will continue to flounder, and the deal will fall apart.

I want to just speak for another couple of minutes about how sincere this government is about the treaty negotiation process. The budget for the treaty negotiations office of the Attorney General has seen some of the most severe cuts of any desperate cuts under this government, and believe you me, the list of comparisons is long. Over the course of this government's term, the budget of the treaty negotiations office will be cut by $29.3 million. The budget for the treaty negotiations office was over $51 million in '02-03. It will be $21.8 million in '05-06 — a 57 percent cut to the treaty negotiations office budget over four years.

This year the treaty negotiations office budget is being cut by a full $6 million. Half of that $6 million cut is for negotiations. Gee, that's a real commitment, isn't it? The other $3 million cut is in the area of economic development. That's how sincere this government is. So while they're doling out little sums to the first nations bands under the first nations trust, in other areas they're cutting millions of dollars.

Asked how the treaty process would be affected by these cuts, the Attorney General acknowledged that there would be less staff and that negotiating tables might move more slowly than participants would like. He also stated: "We're going to have fewer dollars in terms of resources to staff treaty negotiations, but our goal over the last two years has been to establish as a priority getting to final agreement at some critically

important treaty tables around the province. I think final agreements are within reach, and they are certainly within reach within the budget I've set for negotiations." That's what he said a couple of months ago.

Then the Attorney General went on to add: "The B.C. treaty process might have to be revisited if we don't see some final agreements hammered out over the next few years." Really? How does he think he is improving the climate for negotiations with the B.C. Rail deal?

Of course, just to conclude, other cuts across ministries have also had effects on first nations — native courtworker program being cut, social assistance cuts harming first nations, aboriginal health fund of ten million bucks being eliminated, the first nations aboriginal authorities for children and family development put on hold…. It goes on and on.

I hope this government stands up and finally puts on record with a vote, supporting this motion so that they can finally reverse all of the harm they've done, to demonstrate honesty, clarity and respect to first nations.

Hon. G. Plant: I look forward to the opportunity to respond to some of the comments that formed the remarks of the member, the opposition leader.

When we took office, the treaty process had been a place where enormous investments of time and money had taken place but not really enough in the way of progress. Within a matter of weeks or months after taking office, there were no agreements-in-principle in place at any table. In the less than three years since we took office, we now find ourselves in a situation in British Columbia where we are at final agreement negotiations at four tables.

I would argue that instead of resorting to the volume at which remarks are made — which is certainly one of the opposition leader's favourite tactics — and rhetoric, we could just look at the facts. The facts are that we are at final agreement negotiations at four tables, and that does represent an unprecedented level of progress in a treaty process.

One of the concerns that first nations raised over the course of the early years of the treaty process was why governments took the position that there could be no significant transfer of economic benefit until final agreements had been concluded. We actually watched as the former government consistently said no to the idea of revenue-sharing, for example, as being a part of how we could move forward both in the treaty process and outside it.

We listened to that concern, and as a government we've committed to $95 million in forestry revenue-sharing across the province. Significant amounts of those dollars, which were a commitment over three years, are now out the door and in the hands of first nations. Hundreds of thousands of cubic metres of fibre supply are now in the hands of aboriginal communities who are interested in developing a forest economy.

We watched as the former government talked about the need to make a difference in the lives of aboriginal British Columbians but stalled and, certainly, did very little at all in terms of economic development. Over the last two and a half years we have actually committed to spend — and have now spent most of — some $26.3 million on 145 different economic development projects that are providing a benefit, creating opportunity, levelling the playing field, opening the doors to participate in the economic mainstream to first nations in a really, I think, unprecedented way.

This is a challenging file. There's no doubt about it. The aboriginal community of British Columbia, which is 197 or 198 different first nations, comes from a tremendous diversity of cultural backgrounds, geographic experiences and economic experiences. There is a range of different visions about what first nations want for themselves and their communities. The treaty process that was initiated a decade ago or so now never attracted a third of the first nations of the province into it, at least not yet. That is something we continue to work to try to change.

I also have to say I've always thought that if we want to be credible in persuading those first nations who are not in the treaty process that they should participate in the treaty process, then it's incumbent on all of us to make the treaty process work and to show that the treaty process is, in fact, the right and the best way to build relationships founded on trust, to achieve mutual recognition of rights, to achieve certainty, and to move forward in a more productive social and economic framework.

I get it that there are first nations who don't support the treaty process. They're going to continue to watch as we try to make the treaty process work. I also think, for all that it is important I acknowledge there are those challenges, I would be remiss if I did not repeat that we are at an unprecedented moment of progress. We are on the verge of final agreements in different corners of the province. I think that is and ought to be a part of the context for examining the overall state of the way in which the government of British Columbia has, in my view, dealt with first nations with an emphasis on honesty, clarity and respect.

Let me say a little bit about the B.C. Rail first nations benefits trust that's a part of the B.C. Rail investment partnership initiative. To begin, what I want to say is that I have heard some suggestions and criticisms made about the first nations benefits trust, but I have never actually heard the critics substantiate their claims about our intentions. The documentary record about our intentions is clear, unambiguous and pretty straightforward. There are those who characterize our intentions as other than what we say they are. That's certainly part of politics; it's part of life. Sometimes it contributes to a fairly poor level of political debate in British Columbia, because I always think the issues are more interesting when you debate them on the basis of the issues as they are as opposed to the issues as somebody might like them to be.

At no point in the policy development or implementation to date of the first nations benefits trust has there been any attempt on the part of government to

link the benefits trust and the $15 million opportunity that that presents to 25 first nations to government's constitutional obligations in respect of potential infringements of aboriginal rights and title. At no point has government or B.C. Rail attempted to link the benefits trust to whatever obligations may exist in respect of aboriginal rights and title. There's a lot of noise made by some who are concerned about the overall transaction — the investment partnership — but in fact, no one has been able to point to what we've actually said and what we've actually done to support an argument that is made and that was the argument made by the member opposite.

The fact is that you could go back to the letter I wrote on December 9, 2003. The purpose of the benefits trust was stated there pretty clearly, and it hasn't changed much. It really hasn't changed at all.

This trust, I said — and I'm quoting — is "intended to support economic development, educational advancement and cultural renewal for the 25 first nations situated along the B.C. Rail corridor." It's $15 million available to the 25 first nations whose reserves and lands are situated along the B.C. Rail corridor and who have a working relationship, a history of a business relationship, with B.C. Rail. The intention is to make the $15 million available to those first nations for their use in keeping with those three objectives — economic development, educational advancement and cultural renewal — but to be used by them entirely in their discretion as they see fit.

Now, as we developed the initiative, we've had some different ideas about the governance structure for the trust. At one point there was a thought that we could put the trust in place with some government appointees and a majority of appointees from the 25 first nations, but as we started the conversations with the 25 first nations, it became clear pretty soon that these 25 first nations are quite different, one from the other, as you go up and down the rail corridor.

They don't have any tradition or institutional framework within which they have experienced working with one another. Rather than try and force something like that onto the group, we decided that the best structure for the trust would be a board of 25 first nations leaders — one from each of the communities — and then they will decide as a group. Really, other than that one change in the governance structure, nothing much has changed since the idea was originally announced.

We have been, in the language of the motion, very clear about our intentions. We have been completely honest about our intentions, and we have treated the first nations that are the potential participants in this initiative with, I think, a very significant measure of respect. All of this is consistent in the documentary record.

There's a letter — I think it may have been the second letter — that I sent to the 25 first nations on January 14. The issue was, of course, discussed in open cabinet on December 10. I haven't gone back to read what I said at open cabinet on December 10, but I'd be pretty confident I said nothing that suggested there was any connection between this $15 million fund and whatever constitutional obligations government may have or B.C. Rail may have as a result of the transactions that constitute the investment partnership.

There is another letter in February that follows a meeting held in Prince George on February 12, where some questions were asked. My letter answers those questions and talks about why it is that the treaty negotiations office was involved. There were some questions. Are there any conditions regarding rights and title attached to first nations participation in the trust? That was a question that was asked.

Here is what I said: "The B.C. Rail partnership agreement with CN Rail does not transfer any title to lands, and the creation of the $15 million trust does not involve aboriginal rights and title and related consultation and accommodation. Participation in the $15 million trust will not have any conditions related to assertions of rights and title." I don't know how you could be clearer, I don't know how you could be more straightforward, and I don't know how you could be more respectful than that.

People asked about other questions. Were there other conditions or requirements that were attached to the first nations participation in the trust? What I wrote was this: "Participation in the $15 million trust is unconditional. The only requirements included in the legislation will be…." Then I put three requirements: that the funds be invested in projects that related to the three themes I've talked about, that there be some reporting and accountability obligations, and that there be a board of directors established and maintained until the funds are expended.

We did encourage the expenditure of the funds on the basis of geographic equity, but that's not a requirement. That's just an idea and a request. The first nations that benefit from this trust will have the ability to decide how to spend the money.

There is an argument out there about trying to link this trust to consultation and accommodation and constitutional obligations. Frankly, it's an argument made only by those who oppose the initiative. They are unable to find any statement by government that makes that connection. That is the problem they have with that argument. There is no evidence to support the contention. There's a lot of innuendo. Innuendo is the stuff of political life when you don't have facts, just like shouting is the principal tool of the Leader of the Opposition. It doesn't act as a successful mask for the fact that the $15 million has never been connected to the issues of aboriginal rights and title.

We as a government have a position about the extent to which this transaction, the investment partnership, may or may not engage obligations of consultation and accommodation. Fundamentally, our view is that because the transaction does not transfer fee simple title or change the ownership of the land underneath the railbed, there is no need to consult or ac-

commodate with respect to the transaction at this point. That's certainly an important question. I'd be very surprised if the analysis in relation to that question has concluded.

The member opposite talked about litigation. She talked about litigation as though somehow our government was the first government ever to be involved in litigation about aboriginal rights and title issues with first nations. She talked about the Haida. Well, that's interesting. There is a lawsuit involving the Haida that has gone all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, but it wasn't a lawsuit started by this government. It was actually a lawsuit started by the former government. Rather, to be more honest, it was a lawsuit initiated while the former government was in office.

Now, to listen to the way the opposition leader talks about these issues, you would think that the NDP had a kind of fundamental principle that said they would do only whatever was required to assist and help first nations and would never stand in their way. Well, in fact, the former government repeatedly defended lawsuits involving aboriginal rights and title. They repeatedly opposed lawsuits in which aboriginal rights and title claims were made. They did so for what were probably, in most cases, pretty good public policy reasons. When you are met with a legal claim that is fundamentally antithetical to the provincial public interest — as you conceive it, based on the law as it is — it's a good idea to make sure you don't necessarily stand out of the way and concede the point but, rather, put the question to the court to let the court decide the issue.

I heard the member opposite say something about limitation periods. The member was one of the leading members of a government for a decade that routinely invoked limitation defences against claims of aboriginal rights and title. Now, members sitting here a minute ago listening to the opposition leader might be surprised at the failure on the part of the opposition leader to acknowledge or remind the members of the House of the fact that she and her colleague, who was also a member of cabinet, routinely instructed the government's lawyers to plead limitation defences in aboriginal rights and title litigation.

They did it for what I think are probably good public policy reasons. At the beginning of a lawsuit you don't always know if there's a limitation defence, but you may know that the claim has been out there a long time and that it may look, on the facts, as though there is the ability to make a credible limitation argument, so you put the argument there in the statement of defence to preserve your right to make the argument at the end of the day. At the end of the trial, when all the evidence is in, you make the argument if you think it's supported by the evidence, or you don't. That's pretty standard litigation practice. I don't know of any reason, frankly, why you shouldn't apply those same principles — those principles of good, solid defence practice — to litigation where aboriginal people or first nations come to the province and make claims that are based on facts that are unknown to government or based on legal assertions that we believe are not supported by the law.

When you look at the history of the former government compared to the history of ours, not yet three years in office, I think it makes for an entertaining and interesting comparison. The former government beat away at the treaty process for ten years and didn't get any final agreements. In less than three years we've taken a process that had reached a pretty delicate state — well, close to moribund, I would respectfully suggest — and we've managed to get to a point where we now have four final agreement negotiations underway.

The former government spent almost no money or effort encouraging economic development in aboriginal British Columbia. Among the many things we have done is put $26.3 million into 145 different projects around the province to help aboriginal British Columbians become part of the economic mainstream.

The former government did very little to deal with social issues in aboriginal British Columbia. We've actually done a fair bit to try to reinvent and rethink how we can respond more effectively to the need that first nations have — and their right, really, in effect — to have a role to play in how social services are delivered and administered in their communities.

The former government steadfastly opposed the idea that revenue-sharing could ever be a part of treaty negotiations or economic development discussions with first nations. We've put $95 million on the table, and more, to assist in ensuring that first nations share in the benefit of resource development in British Columbia.

When we were thinking about ways in which the B.C. Rail investment partnership transaction could provide benefits to the people of British Columbia, the Premier said: "Well, why don't we take $15 million of the proceeds of this transaction and put it aside in a trust and provide 25 first nations with that money to be used by them at their discretion for economic advancement, economic development, educational advancement or cultural renewal?" I think that represents a pretty progressive series of measures intended to build a strong relationship between first nations and the province.

I haven't even talked about the fact that we are, I think, the first provincial government in history to have annual meetings with the First Nations Summit chiefs. Routinely, members of cabinet meet with members of the First Nations Summit Task Group to discuss a range of issues. We've doubled the size of the First Citizens Fund from $36 million to $72 million. We've made significant investments in ensuring that the Olympics will provide benefits to first nations as well as to all British Columbians. We've had the first citizens forum — a new idea, I think, about how we can bring first nations into the room to talk to other British Columbians about the needs of their communities and what we can do to assist them. The list actually goes on, Mr. Speaker, and it's list which I would say is characterized by honesty, clarity and respect. Those are good themes.

The motion that's before the House, however, has a couple of aspects about it that I think need to be revised. Therefore, I am going to move that the motion be amended in the following way. I'm afraid that the Clerk may need to take a note of what I'm about to say, because I don't have it in a typed-out version. I'm going to move an amendment to the motion as follows:

Hon. G. Plant: With those minor changes, I believe that the motion does, in fact, reflect the will of the Legislature in respect of these matters. But of course, that will have to be determined when the Legislature gets the opportunity to make its views known. I look forward to other contributions to the debate.

J. Kwan: Let us be clear on what the motion is about, which the Attorney General had amended. The government has not approached the aboriginal community in dealing with the issues of treaty negotiations and settlement, particularly on land title issues, with respect and dignity and clarity. Let's just talk about B.C. Rail and the situation right now. The government secretly signed a deal with B.C. Rail to sell B.C. Rail to CN. The government secretly signed this deal so that B.C. Rail, which belongs to British Columbia, is now sold to CN. It could be done and be turned over, in terms of the land itself, after 990 years for only $1.

The government, of course, has done this behind closed doors with no respect shown to the aboriginal community, knowing full well that B.C. Rail runs along a number of aboriginal lands and titles — with no respect to the aboriginal community. The government signed this secret deal without any of their knowledge, without any of their consultation. The government, with the B.C. Rail deal, has done little to improve the relationship between the aboriginal people and the first nations. The secretiveness behind it is now for the world to see because of leaked documents, not because of this government's action. For this Attorney General to claim somehow that they're continuing on with openness and continuing on with honesty and clarity with respect to the aboriginal community is nothing but nonsense.

Let us be clear. The government says that this is not the sale of B.C. Rail. Are they kidding me? Who is the government trying to kid here? The government is selling B.C. Rail, and everyone knows it, with the exception of the Liberal government and the Attorney General. The government and the Attorney General should note that it was the Minister of Transportation who noted that this was a sale. It was the Minister of Transportation who actually said that as a result of the trust, the government now has buy-in from the aboriginal community, when in fact that is not true. That's why people are now wanting to opt out of the trust. It's because the government is creating what Chief Ed John says — "leading people down the garden path." That's exactly what the government is doing with their tactics, and the community knows it. The Attorney General is obfuscating by denying it is a sale, thereby proving the point of this debate that it is, in fact, a sale. The government is not being honest with British Columbians, they're not being clear with British Columbians, and they're showing no respect for the aboriginal community.

The motion my colleague moved simply means this. It means that the government has legal obligations to the aboriginal community. As much as the Attorney General would like to say and may wish to dismiss the issues and the arguments that have been put forward, the point is this. The government's actions can have legal consequences, serious legal consequences for British Columbians, because they show that this government is not fulfilling its duty to consult with first nations in good faith.

The government has a legal duty to engage with first nations in good-faith negotiations. This is a constitutional right protected by section 35 of the Canadian constitution, and it has been reinforced by numerous court decisions. The government may choose to challenge aboriginal rights in the courts, but they cannot simply overrule court challenges and decisions as they have done with Bill 19 for the teachers, because these are constitutional rights that are protected.

This government's strategy is costing millions of dollars in legal fees, and all for nought because the courts have repeatedly ruled in favour of first nations. In a nutshell this government is not consulting in good faith. Legal consultants, academic researchers, academic analyses and court justices continue to stress this point, and yet this government is simply not getting it. They have a legally enforceable duty to respect our constitution and engage in good-faith negotiations with the first nations of our province.

I might just add that this government, in the government's dealing with the Frank Paul case, by not ordering a review…. Even when the police complaint commissioner reviewed the circumstances with new evidence that came forward and said that there should be a public inquiry, this government turned that issue down. Why? Because they have no respect for the aboriginal community and because they deem the people of the aboriginal community completely not relevant to the issues that we face in British Columbia. That is just simply wrong, and it goes to show you this government's arrogance, this government's dishonesty and the lack of clarity and the lack of respect for the aboriginal community.

P. Nettleton: On the amendment, it appears to me…. I'd like a copy of that amendment, please, before we vote on it. It appears to me that what the Attorney General would like to do with the motion as proposed by the Leader of the Opposition is to amend it to suggest that

the government's approach with respect to dealing with first nations is in fact one which involves an emphasis on honesty, clarity and respect by the addition of the words "continue to approach." If that's the case, I certainly would not and could not support that amendment.

I think, more important than what we here in this House think with respect to the handling of the whole question of B.C. Rail and the involvement of first nations with respect to the sale of B.C. Rail, it's important to gain some sense as to how first nations view this whole question. In a recent letter to the Prince George Citizen, Chief Harry Pierre of the Carrier-Sekani tribal council makes the comment that recent debates in the B.C. Legislature clearly highlight the arrogance, in fact, as he puts it, of the Minister of Transportation:

The minister was more interested, in fact, in attacking the opposition than responding to a direct question that the chief had requested that the MLA for Prince George–Omineca pose on his behalf — that being myself. "The 990-year lease of B.C. Rail to an American company must receive the approval," he goes on to say, "of all 26 first nations whose territories the rail line transects. If the B.C. Liberals attempt to avoid first nations approval, then CN must be prepared to consult and accommodate our interests before taking over from the B.C. Rail line."

I had some more comment here, but I think I'll cut my comments short. I would propose, in fact, that we vote on both the amendment and the motion. If that could be possible, noting the hour, I would like to do that.

Deputy Speaker: Member, there may be other speakers, and noting the time….

B. Belsey: Noting the time, I would like to move adjournment. I know there are many that want to speak to this motion.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.