Hansard — Tuesday, November 1, 2005 p.m.

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page


Introductions by Members		1461

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		1462
	Diwali
	D. Hayer
	Diabetes awareness
	A. Dix
	J. McIntyre
	Public art project in Burnaby-Edmonds
	R. Chouhan
	Recognition of volunteers
	L. Mayencourt
	Youth homelessness
	D. Routley

Oral Questions		1463
	Government action on mountain pine beetle infestation
	C. James
	Hon. R. Coleman
	B. Simpson
	J. Kwan
	Closing of Midway sawmill
	N. Macdonald
	Hon. I. Chong
	K. Conroy
	Hon. R. Coleman
	M. Farnworth
	Link of sale of Terasen Gas to softwood lumber dispute
	C. Evans
	Hon. R. Coleman
	S. Simpson

Committee of the Whole House		1468
	Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2005 (Bill 16) (continued)
	N. Macdonald
	Hon. B. Penner
	L. Krog
	Hon. I. Chong
	Hon. M. de Jong

Reporting of Bills		1470
	Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2005 (Bill 16)

Third Reading of Bills		1470
	Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2005 (Bill 16)

Second Reading of Bills		1470
	Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2005 (Bill 11)
	Hon. M. de Jong
	C. Puchmayr
	A. Horning
	G. Coons
	L. Mayencourt
	C. Wyse
	D. Hayer
	B. Simpson
	D. Chudnovsky
	K. Krueger
	M. Karagianis
	S. Simpson
	J. Horgan
	V. Roddick
	R. Fleming
	R. Sultan
	R. Chouhan
	D. Thorne
	L. Krog
	S. Hawkins
	Hon. M. de Jong

Committee of Supply		1491
	Estimates: Ministry of Children and Family Development
	Hon. S. Hagen
	A. Dix

	Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		1510
	Estimates: Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation
	Hon. T. Christensen
	S. Fraser
	B. Simpson
	J. Horgan
	H. Lali
	N. Simons
	D. MacKay
	G. Coons

Hon. S. Hagen: I rise to introduce a family forged by a special bond of love and commitment. The Balmers are a local adoptive family. Three and a half years ago Chris and Nancy adopted two sisters, Courtney who is ten and Tayler who is days away from 14. As a new parent, Chris describes the past few years as "challenging but very rewarding." As he says: "We've learned a lot about ourselves as parents and guides." Nancy and Chris are here to encourage others to explore adoption. Please join me in extending a very warm welcome to them.

As you know, November is Adoption Awareness Month, a time to celebrate adoption and create awareness around waiting children. Today I have asked members to consider wearing "Kids can't wait to have a family" lapel ribbons. In October we celebrated Foster Family Appreciation Month. We are lucky to live in a province where 35 percent of adoptions occur within foster families. While the yearly number of adoptions has almost doubled over the past four years, these ribbons remind us that today there are approximately 1,000 children across British Columbia waiting to become part of a forever family.

A secure family is vital to a child's positive development. Every child deserves a nurturing parent who will help them with their homework, attend their school plays and encourage them through the challenges of childhood, adolescence and beyond. As a lifelong commitment of support and love, adoption has immeasurable value. I hope all members of this House will support local and provincial efforts to find adoptive homes for British Columbia's waiting children.

C. Wyse: With boundary redistribution in the Cariboo, it is my privilege to introduce friends of mine from Cariboo North, Nancy and Gary Gale, who are visiting us here today. They are also visiting their daughter Shirley Patt, who lives in Victoria-Hillside. I would ask the House to extend a warm welcome to these three persons.

Hon. O. Ilich: I would like to introduce to the House today Randle Robertson from the Burgess Shale Geoscience Foundation in Field, British Columbia, and John Wilsgard, representing the Golden Area Initiatives in Golden, B.C. Would the House please join me in welcoming them to the House today.

H. Lali: Visiting us today in the gallery are three guests of mine: Linda Allison, who is the president of the Southern Interior Stockman's Association; Mark Quaedvlieg, who is the director and president of Keremeos Stockman's Association; Dave Casorso, who's the director of Keremeos Stockman's Association. I have met with them earlier today, and they've also met with several cabinet ministers here. They're opposing the creation of a federal park in the South Okanagan–Similkameen area. I would like the House to please welcome my guests here in the galleries today.

S. Hawkins: I was pleasantly surprised, as I gazed up into the gallery, to see a former MLA that served in this House from 1991 to 1996. It's Wilf Hurd. I understand that he's with intergovernmental relations now at Simon Fraser University, and I'd ask the House to please make him welcome.

H. Bains: In the House today is a good friend of mine, vice-president of B.C. Fire Fighters Association. He did a good job putting on a good reception last night. Please welcome him again in the House today. On behalf of my colleague from Surrey, I welcome him to the House. Please join me and extend a warm welcome.

Hon. G. Abbott: Today in the House we have with us a number of guests to mark the beginning of November, the launch of Diabetes Month. It's my pleasure to introduce Jean Blake, who's the executive director for the Pacific area of the Canadian Diabetes Association, representing 248,000 people living with diabetes in British Columbia; also Genie Wright, the Canadian Diabetes Association's regional director for Vancouver Island, who represents 35,000 people affected by diabetes on the Island. Anne Daniels is the Victoria branch coordinator, where she works for some 21,000 people diagnosed with diabetes in the Victoria area.

We're also very pleased to have with us today Dr. Art MacGregor, a Victoria-based family physician who has won the 2005 Charles H. Best award for the Canadian Diabetes Association for his outstanding contributions to the care of people living with diabetes.

Graduating from UBC in 1958, Dr. MacGregor has practised in Victoria since 1961. Among his accomplishments, Dr. MacGregor served as president of the national College of Family Physicians and in 2003 was named B.C.'s family physician of the year — a prestigious honour indeed. Dr. MacGregor has led the development of the Vancouver Island Health Authority transition fund chronic disease collaborative, a group of 65 local physicians working to improve the care of people with diabetes, congestive heart failure and depression. I ask the House to make all of these outstanding British Columbians welcome.

D. Routley: Visiting us in the House is a friend and constituent, Reid Early. I'd ask everyone in the House to please make him feel welcome.

G. Hogg: One of our caucus's most sacred and revered artifacts is today celebrating his 70th birthday. Would you please join me in sending congratulations to the member for North Vancouver–Seymour.

R. Fleming: I rise in the House to introduce two guests today from my constituency. Jorden Layton and Katie Smith are with us today. Jorden was an active volunteer in my campaign. Would the House please make these two guests feel welcome.

D. Hayer: Hon. Speaker, today I would ask you and all members of the House to join me in celebrating Diwali. Diwali, the festival of lights, is celebrated by people of Indian origin in British Columbia and all over the world. Diwali signifies many different things to the people of British Columbia, as it celebrates Rama's homecoming from the exile of 14 years and his coronation as king. This festival honours Lakshmi, the goddess of wealth, and it is associated with goddess Kali. For everyone, however, it signifies the renewal of life. Diwali teaches us to end ignorance that subdues humanity and to drive away the darkness that engulfs the light of knowledge — thus, the term "festival of lights." Diwali also projects the rich and glorious past of humankind and teaches us to uphold the true values of life.

For British Columbians, Diwali has always been a festival with more social than religious connotations. It is a people-oriented festival, where differences are forgotten and families and friends join to celebrate together. Diwali also brings together varying cultures and customs, making the celebrations a happy occasion for all British Columbians. Today I invite all members of this House to join me and all fellow British Columbians in celebrating our wonderful and exciting festival of lights, Diwali. Happy Diwali to everyone.

A. Dix: November, as the Minister of Health has just said, is Diabetes Awareness Month. The Canadian Diabetes Association has launched a campaign called "Diabetes: Get Serious" to raise awareness about the seriousness of diabetes and the need for all Canadians to prevent the growth of diabetes in our communities. This morning across British Columbia volunteers handed out information to the public on this question. The Canadian Diabetes Association provides an extraordinary service.

There are approximately 230,000 British Columbians who suffer from type 2 and type 1 diabetes. Type 2 diabetes develops when the body cannot produce enough insulin or does not use the insulin it produces properly. People with type 2 diabetes represent 90 percent of all those with diabetes in our province, and their numbers are exploding. An increase of more than 100,000 people is expected by 2010. We must do all we can to let people know about prevention and diagnosis of this disease.

Type 1 diabetes, or juvenile-onset diabetes, occurs when the body loses the capacity to produce insulin at all. People with type 1 diabetes typically take multiple shots of insulin every day. There are roughly 30,000 people in B.C. with type 1 diabetes, and I am one of them. This means that I may be the only New Democrat in the country to have voted for Frederick Banting and not Tommy Douglas as the greatest Canadian. Dr. Banting's greatness was not simply that he found a means or treatment that gave hope and longer life to millions of people around the world; he also understood the value of giving individuals the power to control their health and their lives.

Banting and his colleagues, Best and others, chose not to seek a patent for their discovery. They sold their discovery for $1, and they sent a lesson to all of us about the need to provide everyone with the tools they need to deal with this terrible disease.

J. McIntyre: Continuing along with the same theme, I also wanted to mark Diabetes Awareness Month. November 1 is their nationwide information day. As we all know and have heard today, diabetes is a chronic disease with no cure. With high premature mortality rates, 80 percent of diabetics will die as a result of heart disease or stroke. Further, it is a contributing cause of death for over 40,000 Canadians each year. According to the Canadian Diabetes Association, well over 200,000 British Columbians have been diagnosed with this disease. Unfortunately and very disturbingly, it is increasing among our youth. These numbers, by the way, don't include the one in three people who suffers from this disease and doesn't know it yet.

It has been mentioned that there are three types of diabetes: type 1, type 2 and gestational diabetes, which occurs in almost 4 percent of all pregnancies. Type 2 is the most prevalent, accounting for about 90 percent of the cases.

The financial costs are significant, with the diabetic costing the medical system two to three times as much as a healthy person. Medication supplies can range from $1,000 to $15,000 annually per person. With an aging population and rising obesity rates, diabetes is emerging as a real killer in B.C. Our government recognizes this fact. It's why we're hard at work making our province the North American leader in physical fitness and healthy living.

It's important that we all support this goal and encourage others to live a healthy lifestyle. Taking personal responsibility for our health and taking preventative steps will dramatically decrease the risk of contracting diabetes.

I hope that others in the House, along with the Minister of Health, will support the Canadian Diabetes Association awareness campaign this month, "Diabetes: Get Serious," programs designed to create awareness of the risk factors and complications caused by diabetes. This great cause deserves all our support.

R. Chouhan: All of us here in this chamber have a tremendous amount of pride in our communities, and an important part of that pride is those public works of art that enrich our parks, our buildings, our businesses and all around our neighbourhoods.

My own community of Burnaby-Edmonds has struck an Edmonds Town Centre Business and Community Association to set up a beautification committee to produce murals in the Edmonds area. I would like to take this opportunity to commend and thank the committee, especially Paul McDonell for his leadership and for spearheading this project, and the Streams of Dreams Mural Society for their efforts in improving the place we call home. Truly, this is an exemplary case of citizens taking initiatives and building pride in our community.

The redevelopment of the Edmonds area has begun with the new Highgate centre and the new number two fire hall on Edmonds. Many new developments will be starting soon in the Edmonds Town Centre, such as the new library, the swimming pool and the addition to the community centre.

This public art project is more than just beautification; it's also about pride in our neighbourhood. When a community bands together to create public works of art, graffiti decreases and positive community symptoms begin to appear. We have seen graffiti in our communities, but it is very rare that a public mural is vandalized. Through this project, young people will have a wonderful opportunity to be productive and contributing members to something of which they and everybody in our community will be proud. These programs offer more than art. They offer mentorship, opportunities, beautification and so much pride for all of us. Again, I want to commend those members of my community who have taken on this wonderful project.

L. Mayencourt: Volunteers are strong contributors to the economic and social well-being enjoyed by all British Columbians. Some 26 percent of British Columbians volunteer in some capacity or another, contributing the equivalent of over 75,000 full-time jobs last year. B.C.'s volunteer is most likely to be a woman between the ages of 45 and 65, and our most dedicated volunteers are most certainly seniors within our communities, age 65 and over.

In Australia the National Volunteer Awards were developed in 1997, designed to promote, encourage and develop volunteers. Hundreds of awards are issued each year through a process steered by the not-for-profit community. In Newfoundland and Labrador, a more formalized provincial program was adopted to ensure equitable distribution, with over 96 volunteer medals distributed to two individuals in each provincial riding. Balanced between these examples falls the province of Ontario, offering a wide sweep of recognition programs through three targeted awards for exceptional volunteerism, continuous years of volunteer service and youth leadership in volunteerism.

In B.C. there is no shortage of recognition events to profile the exceptional contributions of volunteers, but mostly it is through the non-profit sector. I believe it's time for us to create a provincial volunteer program that will encourage positive impacts, an enhanced profile for volunteerism in the province, the opportunity to showcase local heroes as role models, enhanced learning opportunities, increased local commitment and collaboration to support the 2010 Olympics and pride in being part of a society that says quite clearly it values the efforts of volunteers.

D. Routley: I rise today to speak about Homeless Youth Awareness Week. We are undergoing a crisis of homelessness in British Columbia. Housing — basic shelter — is a human right, a basic human right. The Vancouver Homeless Count uncovered some very alarming numbers. In the case of seniors, the Vancouver Homeless Count found in one year an increase from 51 seniors living on the street to 171 — an increase of 335 percent. This is particularly galling when we see our seniors and young people on the street.

Youth homelessness represents great unrealized potential to our province. All the youth who live on our streets are at great risk of drug abuse and crime. They're at particular vulnerability to predators of all kinds. Our youth are our greatest natural resource. This House, both sides, must work together to confront the crisis of homelessness. If we don't, we continue to be a society disabled, to be a society dishonoured, and allowing our young people's wasted potential to go unmet is truly a dishonouring of humanity.

C. James: The pine beetle epidemic is eating away at our forests in this province. The government has no comprehensive strategy to deal with its impacts. In fact, despite having almost five years to address the pine beetle crisis, the government's response has displayed no urgency and has done very little.

My question is to the Premier. Why doesn't his government have a comprehensive plan to deal with this catastrophe?

Hon. R. Coleman: I invite the Leader of the Opposition to read the Pine Beetle Action Plan. I invite her to do the research with regards to what is going on in British Columbia. I also invite her to look at a little bit of history.

In 1993 the pine beetle epidemic in British Columbia started in Tweedsmuir Park. Your government in

that day refused to go into Tweedsmuir Park to address the issue. Repeatedly in this House, in 1993 to 2001, it was brought up to people on the government side — on the opposition side today — with regards to the pine beetle.

In 2001, when we became government, the Premier immediately put together a Premier's task force on pine beetle, which led to beetle action committees being put together, funding and today $100 million in matching funds from the federal government — and more to come.

C. James: I would invite the Minister of Forests to read his own internal documents in his own ministry, because it is very clear in the document we have received that neither the federal nor the provincial government has a comprehensive plan to deal with the mountain pine beetle crisis.

So again to the Minister of Forests: the minister says his government has a plan, but why do the documents from his own ministry say very clearly that they have yet to come up with a plan?

Hon. R. Coleman: Not only have we come up with a plan, not only have we put people on the file, not only have we funded the file, but we are actually getting on the ground today and doing the work.

The reality is this. You can find a document that might say one thing, but there is a document I would ask the member to look at. That's a document that was released, which was the implementation plan for the federal $100 million that was given out in August of this year. The work done on beetle in the last four to five years is exceptional compared to the no-work that was done under the NDP for nine years.

C. James: I'd like to provide some information to the Minister of Forests, in case he hasn't read his own internal documents. The document says very clearly: "In the event of a positive federal response to the government's request, the provincial government intends to build a comprehensive proposal to deal with the mountain pine beetle."

Now, we've heard this minister in this House repeatedly tell us that they have a comprehensive plan. The internal document very clearly says there is no comprehensive plan. Which is it? Is he going to develop a comprehensive plan, or do you have a comprehensive plan?

Hon. R. Coleman: We put out a comprehensive plan in August with regards to the first $100 million from the federal government, including everything from silviculture to economic development to opportunities on the ground — the communities in the Cariboo and the north.

In addition to that, we have a beetle action plan. We funded two beetle action committees, one in the Cariboo-Chilcotin and one in the Vanderhoof area — both of those. The Omineca being the other one. We have another one where we're doing work in the Thompson-Okanagan.

The ironic thing about this is that this member wants to stand up and have a debate about beetle. But let me tell you something, hon. member and through to the members of your caucus. You let down British Columbians from 1993 to 2001 and ignored this issue in B.C.

B. Simpson: I would suggest that the minister and members of his caucus get a briefing from the beetle coordinator and from the deputy minister, who on two separate occasions showed unequivocally that Tweedsmuir was not the cause of the mountain pine beetle. It was an event that was going to happen because of climate change. Get a briefing from your own people on that.

More to the point today, the document which has a time line of a task given to ministry staff on October 13 of this year…. They were to draft a proposal on October 21. They were given a seven-day consultation period in order to get input to go to the federal government — a seven-day scramble for a five-year problem that this government's got. The purpose of this document, according to the document, is to lay out strategic considerations for key decisions on what to ask for from the federal government.

To the Minister of Forests and Range: why the seven-day scramble to come up with a proposal which promises that a plan will be derived?

Hon. R. Coleman: Because the federal government wants some more information on the next $100 million. We already did the plan on the first $100 million. We've matched it. We've already put that comprehensive plan out to the communities.

I think it's important to realize where the members on the other side of the House see it. The Leader of the Opposition was quoted on radio in Prince George: "I think it is important to get the beetle wood out." It's a little late. If we'd looked at that probably ten years ago in parks, we might have been able to address the issue, but in fact, we've lost most of the wood now.

B. Simpson: Well, embedded in the document that we're talking about today is a suggestion of why this

tight time frame exists: "Strategic considerations for the federal government include that Minister Emerson has a desire that the ask be placed in the context of an economic development platform for B.C. interior communities."

To the Minister of Forests and Range: is the reason for this mad scramble of a seven-day consultation process simply so that this government can give the federal government a platform in British Columbia for the upcoming election?

Hon. R. Coleman: What the member is describing has nothing to do with the action plan on the ground for the beetle action. It is that the federal government asked for information so that they may be able to go forward to their colleagues at the federal government level with regards to finding some funds that may be able to help the small businesses all across British Columbia that have a disproportion of moneys sitting at the border.

They asked for it on a short time frame, so if we're going to get them that information, we should get them that information. The reality, Mr. Speaker, is that we worked with the federal government on different time lines on a number of issues, but I'll tell you this. At least this government, for five years, has been doing something about the beetle action issue.

J. Kwan: Mr. Speaker, let me tell you: the government says that they have a plan. Their plan's focus is not on the community. The very first strategic goal in this document has absolutely nothing to do with communities impacted by the mountain pine beetle.

The only thing this government is interested in is making it link to this Premier's five great goals, and as my colleague mentioned, it's to help the federal Liberals in preparing an election platform. When is this government going to stop playing politics with the lives of British Columbians and put forward a comprehensive strategy for the mountain pine beetle so that the community knows what the plan is?

Hon. R. Coleman: In 2001 the Premier has a summit in the interior of British Columbia. In 2002 they start work with a committee of MLAs to find issues and a plan for the pine beetle action. Shortly thereafter, the first mountain pine beetle action plan is published. An additional one is updated.

Since then, in the communities, in the Cariboo-Chilcotin…. I guess the member wants to say that the communities in the Cariboo-Chilcotin aren't involved in any issues dealing with the mountain pine beetle. But for two years now we've funded the Cariboo-Chilcotin beetle action committee, which is a compilation of mayors and regional directors across the north who've asked for the funding so they could build a plan for their communities. We're doing the same thing in the Vanderhoof–Fort St. James region, with the Omineca plan.

We're actually working with communities. In addition to that, we've doubled or tripled and, in some cases, had to go way above the annual allowable cut to get the fibre out. Our mills are working as fast as they can. Frankly, I think we're doing a pretty good job on the beetle, because we've put some pretty exceptional people on the file.

J. Kwan: Let us be clear. The first targeted dollars for pine beetle were this year, so enough rhetoric from the minister. The government had nearly five years to put a plan in place, and they have not done it.

This document shows that the B.C. Liberals are concerned about three things. It's all about politics for this government — making a political link. It states very clearly in this document, making a political link to the Premier's five great goals: "Keeping" — and I'm quoting directly from the draft proposal here — "political commitments to involve first nations through the new relationship and creating an election platform for the federal Liberals on the issue."

I'm going to give the minister one more chance. Or maybe I should go to the Premier. Actually, I am going to go to the Premier.

J. Kwan: Will the Premier tell this House why it has been nearly five years, and now we're just seeing a development of a proposal, as is stated in this document — just the development of a proposal — on the pine beetle epidemic?

Hon. R. Coleman: Let's not confuse the hon. member across the floor with the facts. There's a proposal to go to the federal government for additional funding. I suppose….

Hon. R. Coleman: I suppose the member is opposed to the fact that on a short time frame we try and get money for communities in British Columbia that are facing…

Hon. R. Coleman: …a crisis with the mountain pine beetle. In addition to that fact, we put $30 million into the northern development initiative. We put another $100 million into beetle. We've attracted $100 million from the federal government. We published the

plan — it's on the Internet, member, if you want to go and get a look at it — as to what we're doing with the federal money. We sat down with first nations in a summit. We're about to appoint a person from first nations who will sit on our beetle action plan as well. We've done a lot, hon. member. What we didn't do is sit on this file from 1993 to 2001.

N. Macdonald: Yesterday the Minister of Community Services said that her ministry had already done the following: "We have indicated to the village of Midway…that we will be there to help them to diversify their economy and that we will be there to assist them." Well, that was news to the people in Midway. The administrator of Midway said that he received two phone calls before question period yesterday. One was in a previous week. It basically asked: "Is the mill really closing?" The second came just before question period yesterday. It essentially said: "Ministry people dealing with this are sick today, and we will phone back later — or you can phone back later, in fact."

Only today has the minister phoned to offer the help that is needed and started to deal with this with any urgency. The question I have: why did the minister give the impression that she was on top of this yesterday when no one in Midway felt that anyone in this government cared at all?

Hon. I. Chong: I will try to be as clear as possible, although yesterday I answered this on several occasions as to what has happened and laid out the facts.

We received a copy of the letter dated October 7 in our office. Shortly thereafter, staff contacted the administrator asking what plans he would like to be put in place through our community transition program that exists. When the formal announcement occurred on Friday, October 28, we again made an attempt to contact the mayor, who was not available. In that case we spoke to the administrator and again suggested that what they would like, in terms of community transition, can occur.

Again, on Monday I had my assistant deputy minister for community transition contact the mayor to speak with him to see what assistance we can provide, all along trying to ensure that this community knows that we're here to help them. I did, again this morning, speak to the mayor directly, who has been unavailable.

Hon. I. Chong: He has said that our government has been most helpful, that our ministry has been most helpful, and that he is satisfied with the process to date.

N. Macdonald: That's certainly a different impression than I was given in speaking to the administrator. What this government has consistently done is acted without urgency when communities need help.

The fact is that this government knew about this crisis in Midway — at least the Minister of Forests and Range knew about it in September — yet nothing was ready to go. The fact is that you only made contact with the mayor this morning after question period yesterday. There are mills potentially closing around this province. Instead of being there for communities, why is the minister making things up as she goes along?

Hon. I. Chong: I would really caution the member to be very careful with his choice of words, especially when I have expressly stated the facts as they have occurred.

All the actions we have taken to date indicate how seriously we do take this matter from the very time our ministry has been notified of this. My conversation with the mayor earlier today also indicated…. As he stated to me: "Thank you for making the call. Thank you for your concern." He is aware that we are interested in meeting with him. We've made the offer of our staff to be there. He is looking for an appropriate date for that to occur. So we are waiting to see what the mayor would like in terms of community transition.

We've always said all along that we are there to help. Members opposite from the previous government…. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant indicated back in the year 2000 that the needs are best identified not within government but rather identified by the community. That's what we're doing.

K. Conroy: Yesterday the Minister of Forests and Range accused me of making the announcement that Pope and Talbot was closing up shop in Midway. That is categorically untrue. In fact, I remind the House that it was the minister — the minister, not myself, not the mayor of Midway — who actually informed the delegation from Midway at the UBCM in September.

My question is to the Minister of Forests and Range. Will the minister tell this House today that when he spoke with Pope and Talbot last Thursday afternoon, as he admitted to doing in this House yesterday, he was not made aware that Pope and Talbot was actually going to announce the closure on Friday, the following morning?

Hon. R. Coleman: That is absolutely correct. I did not know. They did not know on Thursday of last week. As a matter of fact, the decision was made on Friday, subsequent to comments made by — according to them — the member opposite, and the phones started to ring in their offices. The president of Pope and Talbot and their chief executive have told me that there was no intention of doing it on Friday. As a matter of fact, they had thought they would be doing it on November 4, and they had not advised me of that date.

K. Conroy: Well, we're getting different stories from the Forests Minister and also from the Community Services Minister on this issue. They seem to be on two different pages. Seems like the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, and the two are contradicting one another.

So my question is to the Premier. It is clear that someone on that side of the House needs to show some leadership, to step up to the plate. Will the Premier please commit to reinstating the job protection commissioner immediately?

Hon. R. Coleman: I was very clear with the member, and I have been clear on this whole Midway issue all the way along. I can tell the member that the people from Pope and Talbot, even though I spoke to one of their senior people last night at another meeting, have said this — that the minister and ministry did everything that was humanly possible to help them deal with their issues in Midway, and it came down to a business case for Midway versus Grand Forks.

What they did was put $25-plus million into Grand Forks to modernize one mill, saying: "We can protect the jobs in one mill, add the jobs from Midway and do some transition over time in that sort of issue rather than having two mills that were inefficient and ending up in a few years having to close them both." What they did is make the business decision. They've expanded the mill in Grand Forks, and they're happy with the business decision. That's what predicated their final decision.

M. Farnworth: My question is to the Minister of Community Services. She has said a number of times yesterday and today: "We are there to help." Can she tell us specifically what help she is prepared to offer the people of Midway? Is it practical help, which will help their communities? Or is it just the name of a good realtor and a bus ticket out of town?

Hon. I. Chong: We do take this matter seriously in terms of our community transition program. When we make the offer to help, it is to provide assistance to the local community — the local mayor, the local council, the local community — to let them know we will work cross-government to ensure that services are provided and continue to be provided. We have spoken to the mayor now as well as the administrator, and we have stated to them that we will work with them to see what is the best course of action when it comes to community transition.

Every community is unique. Every community has its special challenges. I do want to state, as well, that the announcement of mill closure is not taking place immediately, as indicated in its press release. That will take place, I believe, late in the first quarter of next year. That will also allow us time to continue to work with this community, and they do know that we will be there to assist them.

C. Evans: On October 15 in the Vancouver Sun, a former federal Minister of International Trade, Sen. Pat Carney, said that the federal Liberals should use the proposed sale of Terasen Gas to Kinder Morgan of Texas to reinforce their concerns over softwood lumber and the U.S. violations of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Since that day in the ensuing couple of weeks, her sentiments have been more or less echoed by such people as Adam Leamy, ex-director of the government caucus; Derek Burney, Allan Gotlieb, Simon Reisman and Gordon Ritchie — those are the people who negotiated the free trade agreement in the first place — and even our former Socred Premier, Bill Vander Zalm.

I'm pretty sure that none of the aforementioned good folks ever voted for the people on my team. So my question for the Minister of Forests of the other team is: do you agree generally with the sentiments of these icons of mainstream Canadian conservative thought?

Hon. R. Coleman: A number of months ago when I became the minister, I started a cross-Canada dialogue with the ministers responsible for trade with regards to softwood lumber in Canada. We agreed to do a number of things. First of all, it was to look at diplomacy rather than rhetoric in order to try and get to the table with the Americans. We agreed that we would work together to establish a national plan for Canadian solutions so that if we had the opportunity to go back and negotiate, we could. We agreed that we would concentrate on constructive solutions.

One of the concerns was that we wouldn't encumber the file with other trade issues with regards to our ability to maybe someday getting somewhere, because in the past we haven't exactly had great luck with blockading ferries and doing Nanoose Bay and other things we've tried to do with the Americans with regard to this file.

We are, remarkably, a long way down the road on a pan-Canadian solution with those ministers and the Premiers from across this country. I would not want to put that work in jeopardy because one area of the country, on one single file, wanted to put rhetoric into the discussion today.

We have a great relationship with the state of Alaska, who has backed us up on BSE. We don't need to have the people in Alaska, particularly, on the other side of this discussion with us when we need their voice in Washington. I think we need to find a Canadian solution, and we'll do it with diplomacy this time because the rest hasn't worked in the past.

C. Evans: I think I just received essentially a lecture on the subject of intergovernmental relations and how to deal with another country. So I'm going to switch

ministers. I didn't actually want a lecture on intergovernmental relations from the Minister of Forests. I thought his job was to defend 40,000 sawmill workers and forestry workers.

Yesterday at 11:35 we had a motion in this House. I hoped it would be all-party. I hoped it would be non-ideological. I hoped it would be devoid of rhetoric and softly spoken. It was on the subject of delaying the Terasen sale for 90 days to allow another government to come into compliance with the law with our government. A gentleman got up — I think it was the member for North Vancouver–Seymour — and said the motion was silly, that the speaker — that would be me — was silly, and that's not how you talk to another government.

My question is to the Minister for Intergovernmental Relations. Do you think that the gentleman who spoke yesterday at 11:30 on the question of linkage spoke for your caucus, or was he freelancing on his own?

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm sorry if you thought that was a lecture. What I was trying to do was give you the history of where we're at to come to a pan-Canadian solution — not in international relationships but to a Canadian position, which has not been accomplished on this file in many, many years. The reason we've worked towards that is so that we're in a position to react quickly if the Americans want to go back to the table, because…. Hon. member, don't for a second believe that this government or that side of the House should ever be put in a box about not caring about the 40,000 forest workers in this province.

I believe that we need to be in a position to get to a long-term deal on softwood. We're going to do that if we work together as a country to get to the table with a consistent message to have a successful negotiation. We won't do it by blurring the lines with files from somewhere else.

S. Simpson: The one thing we've learned from this minister over here — and it's consistent; I'll give him that — is that they have no plan on the beetle, they have no plan on mill closures, and today we find out they have no plan on softwood.

The reality is this. We've seen these linkages made. The New York Times has talked about those linkages between softwood and energy on August 27. The U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch, from Utah, has acknowledged the linkages and talked about the need to have a great relationship with Canada and not lose that.

I would quote the member from October 28, '05, on CBC radio: "The U.S. seems to want it all their way, and if it isn't, then everybody else is wrong. Tying energy to it is, I think, one tool we can use to look at it." The member who spoke to that wasn't the member for Nelson-Creston. Apparently, it was the member for Peace River South.

My question to the minister is: will this government stand up for millworkers? Once, just once in its term, will it stand up for millworkers and move to delay the decision on Terasen for 90 days?

Hon. R. Coleman: Not once in the history of the NDP in government did you ever attach the huge sale of electricity to California that you were doing at a huge profit to anything to do with softwood. Today you have a totally different attitude about this.

Let me tell you something, hon. member. We have a plan. For the first time in Canadian history the ministers of this country have come together to put a unified voice together on softwood. We're going to take that forward at the first opportunity we have to the United States to protect the jobs in British Columbia, protect the workers in British Columbia and get a plan that works for long-term stability economically and on the ground in B.C. for our mills.

M. Farnworth: I rise on a point of order. I know we have a new tone in this Legislature, and I think that's to be commended. But I'd also like to remind the Speaker and two of the more experienced members of this chamber — the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Forests and Range — that the use of BlackBerrys is not something that is allowed during question period.

Mr. Speaker: Members, it's been a longstanding practice that BlackBerrys aren't used during question period, and I would hope that both sides of the House would adhere to that.

Hon. M. de Jong: In this chamber, continued committee debate on Bill 16. In Committee A, estimates debate, for the information of members, on the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 16; S. Hawkins in the chair.

N. Macdonald: Just a quick question to the minister, looking at the process here. We've talked about Columbia Lake, and the question is: is this a similar

process that any change in Columbia Lake Park would go through? Is this the normal process?

Hon. B. Penner: Any changes to the boundaries of parks or ecological reserves that are listed in the schedule to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act would require change to that legislation, and so it would require an amendment here to be debated on the floor of the Legislature.

L. Krog: Forgive me, minister, if I asked this question prior to lunch, but for the sake of continuity and my limited intelligence, I'm sure you'll be happy to respond once again. Is there a reduction in the size of any of the parks set out in section 35 as a result of these amendments?

Hon. B. Penner: Over all, the amendments we're debating collectively result in a net increase of 143.74 hectares in the amount of lands that are protected in parks or ecological reserves pursuant to the act. With the three specific parts mentioned in section 35, there is a slight decrease in the total number of hectares.

Coldwater River Park — these boundary adjustments result in a net decrease of three hectares to reflect the fact that those boundaries as originally drawn captured a pipeline and a berm structure that does not have any park value and apparently now provides some impediment to proper maintenance or at least easy access to maintaining those structures.

In terms of the amendment to Manning Park, there's an increase of 1.22 hectares as a result of the adjustment and then a deletion of 1.66 hectares, for a net reduction of about 0.4 hectares. That's to accommodate, I believe, two bridges that are being rebuilt to improve the safety of those corners where those bridges are located. I can attest from personal experience, having worked there as a park ranger, that those two bridges were the site of many serious collisions, motor vehicle accidents and fatalities. So the Ministry of Transportation has generously agreed to fund improvements and replacements to those two structures and to realign the highway roadbed in those areas. That is what has necessitated the overall boundary alignments or adjustments to Manning Park. It's strictly related to making Highway 3 safer.

The third change is to Shuswap Lake Marine Park. We're replacing two different sites in the marine park pursuant to the land use planning process for the Okanagan-Shuswap, which concluded in 2001. The other site was added in 2003, as recommended by that land use planning process, and this now is catching up and taking out the other area as part of that arrangement.

L. Krog: With respect to subsections (d) and (e), I take it that that is not in any way allowing mining within these particular parks and in fact may well represent a removal of rights to mining. Is that correct?

Hon. B. Penner: I believe the member is referring to section 35(d), and the park listed there — if I can pronounce it correctly — Dune Za Keyih…. Yes. What's happening is that there are a number of forfeited mineral claims that are being removed from the list. So in fact, some mining rights are being removed.

L. Krog: Section 36 amends the description of Sunnybrae and Taylor Landing parks by repealing those descriptions — amends the act. Are those in fact being deleted as parks? Is my reading of that as clear as I think it sounds?

Hon. B. Penner: Yes, this is one incident where legislative drafting is relatively clear, but what is not as clear in the drafting is that those areas will continue to operate as parks. They're being transferred to local governments. In the case of Sunnybrae Park, it's being transferred to the Columbia-Shuswap regional district. This is something that they've asked for in writing. The second, Taylor Landing Park, will be operated now by the district of Taylor.

Both of those parks serve primarily a local use in terms of local public recreation and access, and both of those communities are looking forward…. I think, in at least one case, they're already operating the park.

L. Krog: Can the minister confirm to the House, then, that there will be covenants or agreements in place between these districts' municipal governments and the provincial government that will guarantee in perpetuity that these properties will remain as parks?

Hon. B. Penner: It's my understanding that there's something known as a reverter clause in the agreements between the Columbia-Shuswap regional district as well as with the district of Taylor with respect to the two particular parks. The upshot of that is, should those local governments cease operating or using those two parks for park purposes, then the ownership of those lands would revert back to the provincial Crown.

L. Krog: With respect to section 37, again, is that a situation where the allowance for mineral claims in these particular scheduled parks is in fact being reduced?

Hon. B. Penner: As with section 35(d), what's happening here is a number of mineral claims have been

forfeited, and that's just been confirmed in legislation. So those mineral rights are being ended by this amendment.

L. Krog: With respect to section 40, actually. I take it that this section simply means that the Lieutenant-Governor and council must appoint, and that is a change, I take it, of…. Previously the individual to be the agency had to be appointed on the recommendation of the Legislative Assembly?

Hon. I. Chong: Actually, the section remains, in that the Lieutenant Governor does still make the appointment upon the recommendation of the Legislature, which is as a result of the select standing committee — the committee that appoints the independent commissioner on this basis.

L. Krog: If I could simply ask the Minister of Community Services to advise the House what the purpose is of the changes.

Hon. I. Chong: This is to separate the appointment of the Merit Commissioner and the head of the B.C. Public Service Agency.

L. Krog: Again, to the Minister of Community Services. I take it that the purpose of the retroactivity is to ensure that no claims could be made as a result of things that have been done for which the agency may not have had appropriate authority?

Hon. M. de Jong: With some trepidation, I think the section we're dealing with, 46, relates to section 32 of this bill. So it would relate to the Private Career Training Institutions Act, which was the section, as I recall from discussions, that provides students access to a fund. The concern was that whilst the amendment was driven by some concern around their ability to access the fund, the retroactivity is to ensure there is no interruption in their possible access to that fund.

Hon. M. de Jong: Madam Chair, earlier in these proceedings, we stood down sections 12, 13, 14 and 25. I have spoken with the hon. member and the Opposition House Leader and advised them that there is a drafting issue with respect to those sections. The concern is that, if passed and enacted, they would not perform the function they are designed to do. Rather than try to amend those sections on the fly, I believe there is consent to simply have those sections withdrawn from the bill — 12, 13, 14 and 25. I believe I am able to make a motion to that effect.

Hon. W. Oppal: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Bill 16, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2005, reported complete with amendments.

Bill 16, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2005, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. de Jong: Yesterday was one of those special days in the chamber where we were collectively — I hope, I think — as a body doing something that pro-

fessional firefighters in British Columbia have been interested in seeing occur for a number of years — many years, in fact. As I said to one of the firefighters who was professing his pleasure at what was happening, and actually also professing a degree of positive reaction to the reaction he saw from members on both sides of the House…. He thought that was good, and I agreed with him. We reflected that that's really in itself a reflection on the fact that people come to this chamber and do want to do the right thing.

Sometimes, in attempting to do the right thing, there are a myriad of obstacles and hurdles that we have to overcome, and there are questions that we have to ask, whether we're in government or whether we're in opposition — and sometimes those roles change. Yet at the end of the day parliamentarians and legislators celebrate the fact that those hurdles and obstacles are able to be overcome. We were able to introduce a bill which, my sense is, enjoys in principle at least healthy support from all quarters.

It's worth noting, of course, that the work firefighters do is fraught with danger. Most of that danger is of a very immediate nature, and it presents immediate challenges. There is risk that is immediate, and we think of that when we consider a burning structure, a home, and the work that firefighters do to save not just the property but, obviously, the people who inhabit or work in the structures that they're concerned with.

There's another kind of risk, though, and that's really what is at the heart of this bill and the amendments that they move forward. It is the risk that develops over time for firefighters, when they are put in a situation, which their job requires, where they are potentially breathing noxious fumes. They are in closed areas. Fires are burning, and there are burning substances that they may not even know about — and dangerous substances at that. That exposure to those fumes, to that environment, is what gives rise to that risk. The results of that risk often don't become known for years — sometimes at the end of an individual's career and sometimes after that career as a firefighter has passed.

So a couple of years ago — and I'm not in any way, shape or form ashamed to say that it was with constant prodding and encouragement from the professional firefighters — the government asked WorkSafe B.C., WCB at the time, to examine that request, that submission, which said certain cancers that seemed to be developing on a disproportionate basis with firefighters or retired firefighters should be declared and presumed to be a result of the work that those firefighters do and to be contracted by them as a result of the work they do.

WorkSafe B.C., some experts and the firefighters themselves employed some officials to conduct the studies, some reviews, and available data…. There were reports, some of them from other provinces. Ontario, for example, did a report, submitted a draft report. There were peer studies. At the end of the day the case that firefighters were able to bring seemed conclusive. It seemed legitimate for them to say and for the laws of British Columbia to reflect the fact that as a result of the risk we ask firefighters to assume in terms of the work they do, they were exposed to a greater likelihood of contracting certain forms of cancers.

That's what this bill is about. It's not particularly complicated. The amendment says that certain cancers, as set out in the schedule, will be defined under the terms of the act as occupational diseases associated with long-term employment as a firefighter. It creates what the lawyers refer to as a rebuttable presumption, and that means the following.

At a time, a very difficult time for a firefighter or retired firefighter, when they are told or learn that they have contracted one of these cancers, what they don't have to worry about…. And God knows there's lots that they would and do have to worry about in those circumstances. These are real people with real families, and sometimes the diagnosis is such that what they're having to think about is ensuring that their families are going to be looked after when they're gone. Sometimes that's the nature of the prognosis. What this ensures is that they don't have to think about proving the link, proving the causal link between the disease, the cancer they have contracted, and the fact that it was attributable to the work that they did.

Now, it bears repeating, and it is part of the first reading that took place in this chamber yesterday, but those cancers are as follows. Specific cancers now recognized by WorkSafe B.C. are primary-site brain cancer, primary-site bladder cancer, primary-site kidney cancer, primary-site colorectal cancer, primary-site ureter cancer, primary non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and primary leukemia.

It bears thinking about, and I'm happy to see that other members in this chamber have indicated that they will be providing their remarks and, I suspect, anecdotally some of their experiences. For some of the people that they have run across, these provisions would have been or are going to be very, very helpful.

There are a couple of things worth emphasizing, however. I think we in this chamber need to accept that this is an evolution in our law, our legal regime, around occupational hazards, and the body of evidence continues to be collected. There are other cancers that this bill and the regulation that moves with it don't cover. In one case or two, there is a similar presumption extended in one or two other provinces. It's not included here. We're not yet convinced entirely of the causal link or that there's sufficient evidence, but that may change, and we're going to continue to track that very closely, I'm sure, with the help of the Professional Fire Fighters Association.

I should also say this, because I expect members throughout the chamber will want to point this out: the definition of firefighter that this covers does make it pretty clear that what we're talking about in this case

are full-time firefighters, and that goes to the question of the extent of their exposure to the risk caused by noxious odours and fumes and air. That doesn't mean that I or the government are presuming to close the door on that other large body of individuals, those who volunteer in our communities to fight fires, because most certainly, they will have concerns, and they will want us to know that there are risks associated, most obviously, with the work they do. We've had those discussions and continue to have them.

In Alberta there is some work taking place that we are lending ourselves to and tracking very carefully, and I believe just yesterday, ironically in Manitoba, the Manitoba government extended coverage. We're still studying the manner in which they did that to include certain segments of the volunteer firefighting community. So it would seem there is a growing body of evidence and perhaps a mechanism by which that could be done.

While we celebrate the introduction and hopefully soon passage of these provisions that will immediately afford coverage and the benefits of the presumption to professional firefighters, I want to make a clear statement on behalf of the government that the interests that our volunteer firefighters have shown in ensuring that their interests are properly protected has not fallen on deaf ears. That work will continue as well.

It was, as I said at the outset, a remarkable day yesterday, and I would not want to sit down without making these final remarks. First of all, the firefighters have conducted themselves in a way that I believe demonstrates the best of what it is to interact with democratic institutions. They were passionate — have been, continue to be — about this cause. They were at all times civil. They understood that part of what needs to happen in order for this chamber and governments to respond is to ensure that there is a level of education and understanding.

They were bipartisan, unpartisan, in the sense that they knew that meant the chances of parliament, the Legislature, responding increase when there's an understanding on both sides of the House about the virtues of the proposal being brought before us, and have worked diligently to ensure that that is the case. They were not shy about carrying their message both to members of this chamber and to public officials at every level of government.

The response they received via the legislation but also the response — and a number of them commented on this to me yesterday — from both sides of the House yesterday is one that heartens them and leaves them confident that as they move forward, the support they require to carry out their work exists at the very highest levels of our political institutions right here in Victoria in this Legislature.

I would be remiss if I did not pay tribute to some of the work that was undertaken by my predecessor, the Minister of Labour prior to the election, Graham Bruce. Other MLAs have commented on some of the work by MLAs, the member for Burquitlam, the former member for Burnaby-Edmonds — a whole host of people who were of assistance in ensuring that this matter and this day arrived. I am grateful for, again, the work of the firefighters.

I commend this legislation to members of this chamber with this proviso. We have made here, I think, a very solid beginning in properly recognizing the risk and affording the people who incur that risk a measure of protection that they deserve. But these are living, breathing documents, and I want everyone to know that we will continue to be receptive to the data and the information that is collected.

I am looking forward to the comments of other members in this second reading debate.

C. Puchmayr: It's a pleasure to rise here on the initial draft of this template. I listened very closely to the Labour Minister's comments with respect to it being a living and breathing document. I'm sure he didn't mean any pun by that, but we certainly need to take this legislation as a very positive go-forward. We're certainly going to assist the government in putting forward some amendments when it goes to committee with respect to making it so that it encompasses more of those people that are out there fighting the fires in the province of British Columbia.

I'm going to go through a little bit of history here about my former life as a member of the New Westminster city council. I remember very clearly the UBCM convention in 2003, where it was unanimous by every mayor and councillor in British Columbia that this legislation actually needed to be brought forward, that the presumption of cancer needed to be part of workers compensation and the compensation to firefighters in general.

I was disappointed that once it came back to our council…. Our councils recommended it. It was passed unanimously. We thought there was going to be a go-forward at that time. That was certainly not the case. Then the scientists got involved, and Workers Compensation was involved, and the thing started spinning away from becoming a reality. I was very saddened to see that.

So it goes without saying that when the announcement was made in April of 2005, we certainly were pleased that this legislation was going to be amended and that it was going to go forward in a manner that we think now is the template for where we would like to see this go in the future.

We're not alone with this type of legislation. Now Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and even Nova Scotia have presumption-of-cancer legislation. So certainly, whatever sciences we had in Workers Compensation that were steering this thing away from becoming a reality, obviously, there are better sciences out there that are showing there is an exposure and that firefighters are at risk from the line of work they do with respect to fighting fires.

Now, there certainly was a lot of work done and some very gifted people — Gordon Howard, the presi-

dent of Local 1525 of West Vancouver, and the video he made on hidden dangers — and things we can look at to show that there are actually exposures out there that are real, that firefighters are suffering the consequences of those exposures and that it needs to be addressed.

In order to address it, of course, at one time the onus was certainly on the employee to make the case. In some cases to assert that or to go through the sciences to bring the people forward to make the appeals and to show the evidence that it was related to industry would cost tens of thousands of dollars. So just the fact that the presumption is there now and the onus is in reverse is certainly a very significant go-forward position.

The position I'm going to move over to is with respect to other members that work in that field: forest fire fighters, volunteer firefighters, my friends on Saturna Island who fought the huge dock fire and who constantly fight fires when cabins are engulfed. They too are exposed on a fairly regular basis to the same types of carcinogens that career firefighters are exposed to.

I'll give you what I think is sort of a creative response to that. You know, I had friends in the Okanagan fire who were homeless during a period of time where they were evacuated from their homes. I know that my council recommended that our New Westminster firefighters take one of our brand new quint trucks and hurry up to Kelowna and assist on that horrible night when many houses were being destroyed in the fire. They fought side by side with volunteer firefighters; they fought side by side with forest fire fighters. The three components of firefighters were all exposed to the same carcinogens, all exposed to the same hazards of the workplace. At the end of the day, we're saying that one segment is going to benefit from this legislation, and the other two segments will not. With that, I do have some concern.

Obviously, the belief is that this is an occupational hazard. It needs to be addressed. We need to go forward, but I don't believe that we should be segmenting off certain providers of that same service. I believe there is an equal application that needs to happen here, and we need to go forward with that application.

The other concern that I'm going to touch on briefly is with respect to the retroactivity to April 11, 2005. That certainly is a concern. If we are saying now that all these scientists at the Workers Compensation Board and all the technologies or sciences they were utilizing to say that these links shouldn't be made…. We're now saying as a Legislature that that was wrong. The links need to be made. Therefore, having come to that level, why are we not going backwards in retroactivity? We will be proposing some retroactivity when this bill proceeds forward.

Those are really the issues that we're looking at. It's a balance — a fairness of this legislation — so that it applies fairly to those that are at risk, as opposed to one segment of those that are at risk, and also so that there is retroactivity. Just by virtue of being diagnosed two days apart, two different families could sustain two different impacts to this, one devastating and one where at least there could be some support for loss of life down the road. I think the other side needs to clearly look at that so that we prevent that from ever happening and so that everyone is equally covered by this new legislation.

A press release that just came out today is from the Fire Chiefs Association of British Columbia, and it's on behalf of the 440 chief officers, members of the Fire Chiefs Association of British Columbia. They are very clearly concerned about the fact that the bill does not include any of the other firefighters. The chiefs association is concerned. I respect the Labour Minister's comments earlier on how this is sort of a living, breathing document, and I'm holding out that that means the minister will listen to what we're putting forward. I think his comments yesterday were bang on. His comments yesterday were: "The contributions our firefighters make in communities all over B.C. should never be underestimated, and it's important we support them in every way we can."

Well, a lot of communities don't have career firefighters, and their firefighters are exposed to those same hazards. Therefore, taking those powerful words of our Labour Minister yesterday and taking what he spoke about today about this being a living, breathing document, I hope that the other side listens carefully when we make our amendments to this bill, so that at the end of the day, we have something that not only we can celebrate here in the House, but every firefighter, everyone providing that service in British Columbia, will be treated equally and will be supportive of this new legislation. Those are my comments.

A. Horning: It's a pleasure for me to be able to say a few words of support on Bill 11, when firefighters' increased cancer risk will be recognized by the Workers Compensation Board.

My experience in firefighting goes back over 40 years ago when I was a volunteer fireman with the Rutland fire department. In those days it was all volunteer firemen, but in 1972 Rutland became amalgamated with the city of Kelowna, and the volunteers that were there at the time had the opportunity to become full-time firefighters with the city of Kelowna. I elected to stay in the farming business and real estate business, but my brother Dave joined the force at that time, and he spent over 30 years with the Kelowna fire department and just retired a few years ago.

I want to, at this time, thank a couple of local firefighters, Harold Heyming and Larry Hollier. These two fellows, as I sat on city council, approached several councillors to support them in this cause, and they fought very hard with lobbying council. Eventually we were able as a council to give a letter of endorsement to the government on this issue. Of course, we went further and took it to UBCM, and consequently, it was passed there.

Bill 11 recognizes certain cancers as occupational diseases associated with long-term employment as a

firefighter. The law changes the Workers Compensation Act to make it easier for a firefighter with cancer to receive compensation benefits. The new law puts the burden of proof on the employer to establish why a cancer-stricken firefighter should not be eligible for compensation rather than requiring the firefighter to prove the case. The law applies to firefighters who become disabled from cancer on or after April 11.

This bill contains seven listed primary-site cancers: brain, bladder, kidney, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, urethral, leukemia and colorectal. The last, colorectal, is a combination of two cancers, effectively giving B.C. firefighters and their families eight covered cancers, the second-most-covered cancers in Canada.

In closing, I would like to mention some of the key messages of this act. WorkSafe B.C. is undertaking extensive examinations of the links between the occupation of firefighting and certain cancers. The evidence we have tells us that it makes sense to move forward with these changes. Government has moved to ensure that the Workers Compensation Act recognizes the risks associated with firefighting. B.C. is now among the provincial leaders in a number of cancers recognized as presumption occupational diseases associated with long-term employment as a firefighter.

Our firefighters face extraordinary risks each time they answer the call. It's important that we recognize the contributions made by our firefighters and appropriately acknowledge the dangers they face. This is one of the reasons I support the bill. Another one is from watching firefighters in the Firestorm 2003 in Kelowna, when we lost a lot of houses and evacuated over 50,000 residents. Firefighters worked around the clock — not only our local firefighters, but we had firefighters from across B.C. and also some from Alberta. At this time I would like to acknowledge those firefighters for the job they did in Kelowna in 2003. The significant part of that whole firefighting issue is that there was not one life lost.

In closing, I support the bill and look forward to the support from other members of this House.

G. Coons: I'm pleased and honoured to rise and have the opportunity to discuss and fully support Bill 11, the Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2005. It's an act that I have had a lot of experience with. The Prince Rupert firefighters have put in a lot of hours of meetings and lobbying. Their struggle to recognize something that needs to be there is finally here, and we're recognizing that.

As far as Prince Rupert firefighters, Local 559, I'd really like to commend some of the past members up there: Calvin Thompson, Dave McKenzie, Remo Pamponio, Jeff Beckworth, Rocky Puelo. They spent a lot of hours not only with me but with previous MLAs, and we've finally come to a point where we have some legislation that is long-needed — long-needed not only for firefighters but also for the wives, the husbands, the children of these firefighters and their families — and the needed for having that out there for them.

As was mentioned earlier, I met Tim Bailey, who's in the Legislature today up in the gallery. I met him at the UBCM and the firefighters that were here all this week. I have to give my heart and soul for their dedication to this end. As mentioned, UBCM unanimously supported this, along with many municipalities — Vancouver, Surrey, Richmond, Langley, Nanaimo, Kelowna and also, I'm proud to say, Prince Rupert, my own municipality.

I'd love to mention a few words from Mr. Bailey up in the gallery that he commented on a website somewhere. The issue is being put forward now because of the scientific evidence we have that can show that firefighters have twice the rate of cancer as the public. It's important to remember that every workplace is potentially our workplace. Wherever firefighters go, they don't know where they're going into. It may be a factory, a company, a house with a meth lab. I think that finally we're recognizing the workplace indications and that this is a bill that's long-needed.

Even though it is a great bill — it's a great bill — I hope that in the days to come we can even make it better. There are a few concerns, as were mentioned. The legislation only covers full-time firefighters, and the part-time and volunteers at this point are not covered. Basically, at this point in time it ignores the over 11,000 part-time and paid on-call firefighters. I think the call from the fire chiefs is one that hopefully will be echoed throughout this chamber.

An important aspect of the bill is the status of the many volunteer firefighters and again — as I spoke of yesterday on the electoral boundaries — the many rural and northern communities that depend on volunteer firefighters.

The hon. member for Kelowna–Lake Country. I do have a spot in Oyama where I have a strong plot of support on one of the orchards. My mother-in-law and brother-in-law live there. My brother-in-law is a long-dedicated member of the Oyama fire department. For the many summers I've spent there, I've gone to some of their training sessions and have realized the important value that they have in small communities like Oyama and spread throughout the rural areas in smaller remote communities. I see this especially in my riding in the first nations villages, where their volunteer firefighters put in long hours and are dedicated to the job. I hope we can realize that this legislation has to be more inclusive. We should consider that.

One other concern is the forest fire fighters, and Kelowna was mentioned. I was there for that, watching the will, the dedication, the fear and apprehension of the firefighters there in the community. I watched the fires nearly eat their way to Oyama. But thank goodness and the dedication of the forest fire fighters, it didn't make it over the hills. I hope that as we work together with this living, breathing document that we can be inclusive again in that aspect.

Everybody knows firefighting is a dangerous occupation. They face a wide variety of hazards. They battle raging infernos, rescue people trapped in burning

Another major concern that I and members on this side have is the concept of the lack of retroactivity for valuable men and women who put their lives at risk. As far as the bill, we look at it dating back to, I guess, April of this year. This amendment does nothing for those firefighters whose cancers predate this amendment bill.

We can make this bill better, and we can be more inclusive with the addition of retroactivity clauses similar to the other jurisdictions. If we look at other jurisdictions, with Manitoba in 2002 leading the way with retroactivity going back ten years, with Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia following Manitoba's lead…. Again, on this side, we are very supportive of this bill, and I know we can make this a better bill as we work together with everybody in the Legislature so that firefighters — part-time, volunteer and forest fire fighters — are included in this legislation.

One last item I want to get out on the table at this point in time is the item that is missing, I believe, from this amendment: how the list of diseases gets added and how that list is expanded. For example, including site lung cancer as it is recognized in Manitoba. We hope to assist, alleviating all the concerns in this area as well as many others.

At this point in time I would like to conclude. Working with the House on this, I hope that it is a living, breathing document and that we can alleviate all the fears out there and make this one of the best amendment bills that has come into legislatures in the country.

L. Mayencourt: I, like other members here so far today, rise in support of this piece of legislation. Since I became an MLA, we have had a regular annual visit from the firefighters in British Columbia, and they are great guys and gals. They come here, and they have talked to us about a number of issues over those past five years.

It gives me a great deal of pride to see our government, the Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services responding so positively to the hard work they've put in, in the five years that I was in the process. I know that was a lot of work. I know it took a lot of cajoling and a lot of time to talk about what the issues were. I think we've come out with a good piece of legislation as a result of that.

I want to pay tribute to other colleagues in this caucus who worked very hard on this bill as well. I think that each and every one of us has been touched in some way by the kinds of risk that public safety personnel put themselves in as a way of protecting us as private citizens. I think that the work that has been done here so far has been great.

Like other members, there are some issues that I hope we will be able to amend over the course of time. For instance, I really believe that we should find some way of incorporating volunteer firemen in this particular piece of legislation. I know that the minister has made a commitment that he will monitor the situation in Alberta, where they are also considering this.

This is very historic. You take a look at Canada right now. You go from western Canada, from B.C. to Alberta to Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and all of those provinces have adopted this very progressive piece of legislation that takes the onus off the firefighters having to prove that a cancer they have was as a result of their work.

Firemen today go into burning buildings in my neighbourhood and other parts of this province, and they're exposed to all kinds of toxins, all kinds of plastics and formaldehydes and so on. That intense amount of exposure over a very short period of time quite often does lead to a more significant risk than just walking into a building and trying to put the fire out. It's important to note that with that exposure there are folks — firefighters in our province — that have experienced cancer. We need to do everything we can to help them along the way.

Madam Chair, you yourself are a survivor of cancer. You know well — as I do, as someone that's worked with individuals who are living with cancer or with other life-threatening illnesses — that one of the last things a patient has time for is to be their own advocate. This is something that individuals within the firefighting profession have made note of and brought home to me and to you and to other members in this House — that it's important that we recognize that this presumptive cause of cancer is valid. Therefore, I am very pleased to be supporting this piece of legislation.

Yesterday in the House we had firefighters all the way around us here in the galleries. I want to tell you that I really, really felt proud of the people we were helping yesterday. These are great human beings. They work hard, they go to places that none of us want to go, and they take people out of buildings and give them life.

And firefighters do many, many more things. In my community they're involved in all kinds of work with young children, with the burn unit and so on. These are people who are truly engaged in British Columbia society. We do owe them the respect, the honour, the understanding and the acceptance that they have been exposed to toxins and what have you that might cause cancer — not necessarily right away but perhaps later in life.

I was speaking with a couple of the firemen last night. We had a little party. We got together. It was Halloween, and of course, everyone was dressed as a fireman. We got out there and had a really good time. I chatted with some of the firemen, and they said to me that they started lobbying government on this particular issue in 1987. That's a long time, and I want to thank them for their perseverance.

I know that some of their colleagues are too late to have benefited from this piece of legislation, but as we go forward, I know that those individuals who worked in my community to inform me about the presumptive-

causes-of-cancer legislation that they wanted to have happen…. I'm proud that they came to me, I'm proud that we worked with them, and I'm proud that we got this piece of legislation in front of us.

In conclusion, I want to acknowledge a group of individuals that I was with last night who are from my neighbourhood, who represent Vancouver's firefighters very well in the negotiations with government. They are Lance Ewen, Jeff Dighton, Gord Wilson, Chris Coleman, Gord Ditchburn, Paul Sihota, Manny Dosange, Rolyn Potter and Al Gregory.

There's one name that's not on there that I must add, and that name is Rod Macdonald. Rod is the president of the union. I think I've had him into meetings with you when you were the Minister of Health Planning. He's a fierce advocate of making sure that when there are issues around public safety, firefighters are well represented at the table and their views are understood. As we go forward, I know that we can count on these members and many others to provide government with information that might make our legislation even better.

With that, I salute the Minister of Labour and Citizens' Services. Good job — great to do it. I look forward, over the course of some consultation, to seeing if there are ways that we can even do better.

C. Wyse: It is indeed a pleasure to follow my colleague from Vancouver-Burrard. With my colleague representing a more urban riding, it is indeed my pleasure to provide somewhat of a contrast in the argument in support of this good bill. Before I begin that, I would like to recognize the Minister of Labour and Citizens' Services for introducing this much-needed legislation.

In the discussions here I want to present some rationale for making a good bill into a better bill. In following my colleague opposite…. He represents an area that has a full-time, paid fire department that is equipped properly and adequately and has been for as long as any of us here in this House have been. But when you come from a rural area, as I do in the Cariboo, our fire departments are predominantly volunteer — paid, maybe, a very small stipend and remuneration.

In actual fact, the basis of this bill is based upon exposure to risk and the development of the resulting diseases, namely the various cancers that are contained within it. I propose to this House that we're beyond the time of monitoring, as has been so ably demonstrated by my colleague.

This has been petitioned since 1987. The arguments, in actual fact, apply to the volunteer fire departments also. The same situations that all firefighters face are faced by this particular group. Therefore, in making a good bill and making it better, I'm hoping that members opposite will have heard this comparison — the contrast between the two general ways that fire protection is provided to our various communities — and will be in support of an amendment to include volunteers.

My colleagues opposite from the Okanagan and my colleague who has just walked in from Kamloops–North Thompson — and I hope I got the riding correct — have experienced the forest fires and the devastation that they cause. Once more the forest fire fighter is exposed to the same risks. As a matter of fact, colloquially, this group of firefighters are called smoke eaters, and they're called that very affectionately. Again, for me the same argument applies, through amendments to this legislation, to include that group also.

The second point that I believe the House should be looking at is the one of retroactivity. When I look around the House here and given my own age, I'm aware and have friends that have been volunteer firemen for decades in actual fact. They have been exposed for decades to this same risk. The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard very eloquently made the case that when a family is exposed to a serious disease like cancer, which has been attributed to the actual risk factors that they have volunteered in doing, one of the very last things that should be facing that family and the surrounding members is looking over their shoulder for financial security.

That is the underlying basis contained in this legislation, and to have it go back to such a short period of time I believe needs to be examined. Given the two points that I've presented in front of the House in support of amendments to good legislation, I would point out that there are precedents around this type of legislation by other provinces. So it isn't as though it requires that as a House, we need to go out and make a study of these particular areas. Both the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan cover these types of items. Therefore, I would hope that when we are dealing with this item at another stage, the House will look favourably at those two amendments.

Now, there are two other items that I believe likewise the House should look at for improving the particular bill, but it would be my opinion that these two items would fit more appropriately into the monitoring aspect of the bill as time passes and we have a chance to review it. I believe we should look at the actual list of diseases that are presently covered. There are larger groupings of various cancers that are covered by other communities, other provinces, under this type of legislation. I believe that as time passes, we should come back and have a look at that particular list itself.

The other point I would draw the House to is clarity around the phrase "cancer caused primarily from fire suppression." That particular phraseology may lead to a bottleneck of interpretation where this intent of the act is to reduce the burden of proof upon the actual cause of the particular illness, and there is the possibility of needing to defend the phrase of what primarily fire suppression responsibility does mean.

We have many of our fire officers who will have actually served in fighting fire and then, as their career passes, change their actual assignment — for example, become fire inspectors. Therefore, there is the possibility that this could lead to somewhat of a bureaucratic

interpretation. But as I've mentioned, this is an item in my mind that fits in that area duly for the monitoring over the passage of time as we see this thing is passed and put into place.

In closing, I ask the House to remember the contrast and the comparison between both the rural and the urban fire departments and to ensure that our volunteers are also covered under this particular legislation in a retroactive fashion so that we cover back over that period of time.

D. Hayer: I am very pleased to stand in support of this very important change to the Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2005 — Bill 11. The firefighters of British Columbia have been asking for many years for this recognition of certain cancers as being an occupational disease associated with long-term firefighters. Well, this document demonstrates that we not only heard those firefighters; we listened too, and we acted.

Firefighters are one of our first lines of defence for our home and our family, and we all owe them a debt of gratitude. This amendment is just one more way we can all say thank you to those brave firefighters who go into harm's way to protect us and who, regrettably, may suffer the consequence of exposure to toxic materials while they are protecting us.

I want to thank all those firefighters who made the efforts that have resulted in these changes to the act. I want to thank the Minister of Labour, who I know has made this amendment a personal goal. I commend the government, the minister and all members of this House, who I am certain will support this amendment unanimously as their way of saluting the bravery of our firefighters and honouring their selfless commitment to the safety of all British Columbians.

B. Simpson: I am very pleased to rise to support this bill in principle. My brother is a firefighter. He's a firefighter in Kelowna and has been in many, many fires in which he has been exposed to all kinds of toxins, so I am very pleased to see this happen. Again, I want to make sure that I'm understood to be fully supportive in principle.

However, as members on this side of the House have pointed out, there are some weaknesses in the bill as it is tabled, and they're weaknesses that are hard to understand. I'd like to spend a few minutes explaining why I feel they're hard to understand, hoping that when we table our amendments, members on the government side of the House will listen to the reasons and listen to the logic and do the right thing.

The amendment on retroactivity. My brother was one of the firefighters who fought in the firestorm of 2003. He was a firefighter who spent his entire shift fighting up against the fire line. On the crew change, as he came out, the crew coming in had no officer. So he was asked if he would, because he's an acting lieutenant, take charge of that crew until they could go back and find an officer for that crew.

That was one of the crews that was trapped on the Friday night, and we did not hear for four hours whether those firefighters were alive or dead. My brother still has nightmares about that event, as do many of his colleagues. There is an ongoing study as to how much exposure those firefighters had because their Scott packs had run out. They had to fight that fire in a circle-the-wagons approach where they simply took all the trucks, encircled themselves and sprayed water in the hopes that the fire would blow past them.

It took six to eight minutes for those large houses to completely explode and then implode upon themselves and evaporate. Trees blew up all around them. Propane tanks went off. My brother and his crew members describe it as if they were in a firefight in a war zone.

According to this act, the level of exposure that those firefighters were exposed to in that one incident, if it leads to any kind of cancer or any kind of illness…. It is my understanding, according to the way this bill is being tabled, that they will not be given the presumptive clause because it starts on April 11, 2005, and would not go back to 2003.

B. Simpson: Okay. Well, I stand to be corrected. I've been misinformed, then. If that's the case, then I look forward to an explanation of that other than what I've been given.

The other aspect of this that I've been told is that as new science and new studies indicate, other forms of exposure which then go back for those who have been in service 20 years or 25 years…. Those who have been exposed to those carcinogens may not then be covered retroactively. So the retroactive clause, I think, needs to be looked at.

The second is that our volunteer firefighters are not covered. I come from a community — the community of Quesnel. We also have smaller communities like Big Lake, Horsefly, Likely and Nazko that are only covered by volunteer firefighters. Many of those firefighters have more experience actually fighting fires than many of the full-time firefighters down in the lower mainland and those covered by this bill.

I have a letter here from the fire chief from Quesnel, who's written to the minister. For his benefit, I would like to put this on the record, because I think it speaks for itself.

Madam Speaker, I think that argument stands for itself, and there's not any reason to add to it.

My final comments I wish to make are about our Forest Service firefighters who — again, it's my understanding — would not be covered under this act. Those firefighters on any given fire are exposed more than most of the firefighters are in any given year. We cannot forget that we use fire retardants and that we use fire suppression chemicals. Many times these folks are in there, and they're not called smoke eaters with no reason. They are out there fully exposed to anything that's in the air. We do not yet know the carcinogenic effects of mosses and lichens and the various other organisms out there that are being engulfed in the flames.

I would like this bill to be much more robust. I would like us to learn the lessons from other provinces such as Manitoba and Alberta that are moving forward and adding more to their existing legislation. I think that the two amendments we are going to table from this side of the House make the bill more robust. I would hope that the members on the other side of the House give them due consideration and pass them and that then, collectively, we make this a much stronger bill and we do embrace our volunteers in a way that they're asking to be embraced.

D. Chudnovsky: Thank you to the Government House Leader for pointing at me at that particular moment. That was one of the thrills of the three months so far.

I'm pleased to speak strongly in support of this legislation. It's a time to celebrate, and it's a time to congratulate our friends, sisters and brothers, neighbours and family members who are firefighters in the province of British Columbia.

This presumptive-cancer campaign is one that has been longstanding. The professional firefighters of the province brought this notion forward almost 20 years ago. It's a testament to their patience and to their commitment that today, this week, we're able to move forward on this issue. These people who are firefighters in British Columbia have provided a service, an important service, to the working people of the province and to our communities.

This is a victory, and it's worth celebrating. I think it's a victory, in the first instance, for the professional firefighters of British Columbia and for their families. We need to congratulate them and to thank them for the hard work they've done on this issue.

Strong workers compensation legislation is central to our social safety net. Civilized societies understand that work, unfortunately, sometimes leads to illness or injury. We wish that it weren't true, but that is sometimes the case. So we are duty-bound and have the responsibility as legislators to bring forward and strengthen that legislation which protects workers from workplace accidents and from workplace illnesses.

We do that in several different ways. One is to educate, and that is an important and central aspect of workers compensation legislation. We also have, as part of the workers compensation regime, protections and standards that are put in place as our society's rules and regulations with respect to how work should take place across the province. That's an important element of workers compensation legislation.

Another part of workers compensation legislation — unfortunately, but it needs to be there — is insurance. We need to provide a financial safety net for those who fall to illness or accident in the workplace so that as a result of the problems that they face in the workplace — despite the problems that they face in the workplace, the illness or accident that they have to go through — they're not put in a position where they suffer too tremendously financially. We know and understand — and I hope there will be other opportunities to look at — the levels of compensation and the way in which workers are compensated. But the concept and the principle are important — that we protect those people from financial ruin.

In this specific case, we're talking about the issue of presumptive cancer. It seems to me — and it strikes me that there is some consensus in this House on this question — that the first reason we need to deal with the presumptive cancer issue is because the science is clear. The science is clear that those whose job it is to fight fires have workplace dangers that most British Columbians don't face and, as a result, have disproportionately suffered from cancers. We need to take seriously the science in this area, and I think this legislation, in fact, does take seriously the science and moves us significantly forward.

The legislation, in effect, presumes that the cancers that are identified in the schedule are a result of workplace exposure and turns the burden of proof, the onus, at the Workers Compensation Board around so that firefighters are more able to make their case when it comes to what they've suffered as a result of exposures on the job.

The second reason why I think there is a consensus in this House with respect to the value of this legislation is that there is a common understanding that in the face of this terrible illness too many firefighters have to deal with, we need to do something to make sure there isn't a double whammy on those families — that they're not worried about the case that has to be made

before the Workers Compensation Board, that the onus is turned around, that it's easier to make the case with respect to the presumptive cancer. This legislation then gives them the comfort that they won't have to. The two points go together. The reversing of the onus and the science go together so that those people who are suffering from these illnesses don't have to unprove the science. That's not their job. The science is there. We understand it, and the legislation is there now to protect them.

As I said a minute ago, there is a consensus in this House. It is to the credit of both sides of the House that there is a consensus with respect to what is in the bill before us. Having said that, it seems to this member that there are several areas where the bill does not speak, where it should speak. It's my belief that together we can build an additional consensus. We can build a consensus on at least one or two of those areas where the bill does not speak.

The one that I'd like to direct my attention to for just a minute is the issue of retroactivity. It is in the nature of legislation that it is sometimes arbitrary. That is, legislation is written to take effect on a particular date — sometimes the date that the legislation itself is passed, and sometimes retroactively. In this case, the bill that's before us is retroactive to April 11. I want to argue that, like all legislation, that date is somewhat arbitrary. It's a date which has been chosen by the drafters of the bill, by the government, and the problem with the arbitrary nature of legislation is that it takes a snapshot. It cuts the course of history at a particular day. I want to argue that in this case, it makes more sense for us together to move that retroactivity back. It makes sense because people are ill, and those illnesses don't have a particular date.

April 11 is a date which does not have much meaning to the contraction and the spread of the disease in individuals. People have become ill and have suffered as a result of these cancers, which are now being recognized as presumptive cancers. Their illnesses don't relate to that particular date. So it seems to me that while in some cases an effective date for legislation — today, the day that it's passed, a couple of months before — makes sense, in this case we would improve the bill and speak to the needs of a number of British Columbians if we were able together to agree to move to retroactivity. There is tremendous support on this side of the House, and certainly from me, for the legislation. I think we can make it better, especially in the area of retroactivity.

There are some other issues which others, happily on both sides of the House, have spoken to. The issue of volunteer and part-time firefighters, I think, is an important one. Others have spoken to that; I won't take up the time of the House on that. The issue of specific heart and lung diseases that arise — it's argued, and I think it's accepted — as a result of the workplace hazards that firefighters find themselves in or deal with…. Again, others have spoken to that. I won't take up the time of the House except to say that I think those are points well made.

This legislation is a fitting, though tragic, memorial to those firefighters who have gone before, those who have been disabled or who have died as a result of these cancers. This bill strengthens our commitment to and our protections for this group of working people. That's an important part of our job — to find ways to provide the protections that firefighters in this case but working people in all cases need and deserve.

I think we can work together to make a good piece of legislation even better. I commend that notion to members on both sides of the House. I'd like to once again, in closing, express my support for the bill and urge all members of the House to support it as well.

K. Krueger: Madam Speaker, once again, it's awfully good to see you in that chair, knowing that you came through your own terrible fight with cancer over the last many months. Like all of the members who have spoken before me on both sides of the House, I'm tremendously pleased to be a part of this debate and a supporter of this legislation, of which I'm very, very proud.

I've been a member now…. This is my tenth year. We've had a visit by the firefighters every year, I believe, since I've been elected. Every year they came to us and said, "We really think that government ought to allow this presumption," and I'm tremendously proud of a Premier, a minister and a government that have followed through on that step.

I know we all appreciate the many, many good things that firefighters do in each of our communities and throughout our province. We see them streaking off to motor vehicle accidents. They're often there before the Ambulance Service, in that there are more fire halls than ambulance stations. They provide a very great level of assistance at motor vehicle accident scenes. They often help people out in their homes with the kind of accidents and illnesses that people phone 911 to report. I know I always feel better when I see the fire trucks on the way to any of these incidents.

I represent a long string of small communities served by tremendous volunteers and volunteer fire departments who are called out in the middle of the night, often to very frightening situations, incurring substantial risks in going to help other people in need. I really respect and value these people as they work — sometimes underwater, sometimes in muddy ditches, sometimes in very dangerous vehicles — putting their own lives at risk, using the Jaws of Life, extricating people from crashes, doing their utmost for their fellow man often in situations of great danger.

In my previous life I worked in the road safety division of ICBC for some time. I had the privilege of working with lots of firefighters and brought on a program to teach people how to properly install infant car restraints, making sure people were trained to put their babies and their little children in properly. The firefighters did the work. I didn't have the staff to do it,

but they did. I know the public sees them taking part constantly in that sort of valuable volunteer activity.

A friend of mine, when I was engaged in that work, brought on a training session for little children in a fire department. They had decided to bring this whole school full of little elementary school kids over to the fire station and teach them about fire safety. The adults brainstormed before they brought this on. What central message would they have for the kids? What would they want the children to go away with? They decided to teach them what to do if their clothing ever caught on fire. The slogan is, "Stop, drop and roll" — right? We've all heard that.

Those poor little kids were indoctrinated with that slogan from the moment they got off the bus. They mentioned it at the meal that they served them. They taught them a little dance. They showed them how to stop, drop and roll on the tumbling mats. All day long that message was brought home to them.

One little girl was just getting back on the bus and a big, burly firefighter leaned over and said to her: "So, darling, if your clothes are ever on fire, what will you do?" She said: "I wouldn't put on those clothes." It's amazing how clearly children see things, and not always the way that we think.

I really appreciated their help in all those efforts, and they're always helping. We had a tragedy not long ago in my constituency. Clearwater is a small village, not yet incorporated. It has a volunteer fire department. The firefighters were called out in the night. A restaurant was burning down, and a young volunteer, Chad Schapansky, was trapped in that fire and died — a real tragedy, and one that the people of Clearwater will never forget.

I think it was brought home to everybody worldwide in the tragedy of 9/11 that these people — who usually, when you see them, are all spiffed up in nice uniforms that look freshly pressed, and you often see them doing public service activities around town — have to always be prepared that one day they'll go to their deaths. Those firefighters running up the stairs in the twin towers — I'm sure many of them knew they were running to their deaths, but they went, because that was their duty. Firefighters go to work every day knowing that that might happen.

One of the members who spoke previously from the opposition side mentioned the wildfires of 2003 and my constituency having been involved. That was a horrific experience. The first fire, the Strawberry Hill fire, was alarming enough, but when the McLure fire got rolling, it was a nightmare. They're doing a memorial monument about it. It's a dragon that a sculptor is carving for the monument, and that's what that thing was like. It was just ferocious, making its own weather system, throwing burning material up to three kilometres ahead of it, and it gave off a roar that defies description. It was terrifying.

The little, tiny fire department from Barriere, B.C. — a volunteer fire department full of heroes led by a fellow named Al Kirkwood, who in his day job is a publisher of the little community newspaper, the North Thompson Star Journal — rushed out there to McLure, started fighting that fire and backed up in front of it for 20 hours until it reached the community of Barriere. I was getting reports every few minutes from the Ministry of Forests. At that point, when it reached Barriere, they said to me: "We're pulling everybody out. The community's going to burn tonight. We can't stop it now."

There were 800 homes involved, and they thought they'd lost it. But nobody really knew the tale of what those firefighters went through until the next day, because it was tough to communicate. The fire was horrific. The noise was awful. They had a few RCMP with them, and a few forestry guys, and this horrific fire was bearing down on them. When they finally pulled out, they had to actually drive through a wall of flames, and they didn't know if they were going to hit something in it and get stopped, if the fire was going to consume all the oxygen and their vehicles would stall, or what was on the other side.

One of the firefighters told me how he looked back through the wall of flames when they made it through, and he saw an RCMP car coming through the flames, and it looked like something that no special effects guy could design in the movies. It was a horrific experience. Some of them were pretty profoundly affected by it — some of the people who were there that night — but they, too, put their lives on the line trying to stop that fire from reaching the community.

At the end of the day God stopped it. Lots of people were praying about it. It reached Barriere, and it split. It went around. It had to jump the North Thompson River on the left-hand side, which would be the west side. It had to jump the North Thompson. It burned along on the other side of the North Thompson, jumped back on the other side of town and burned almost a complete circle around the community of Barriere. No homes in Barriere actually burned, but we did lose about 80 homes in the area on the south end of Barriere, in the smaller communities — Exlou, McLure, Louis Creek.

The largest employer in the area burnt down and will never be rebuilt, sadly. But those people knew what they were up against, and they stood in there for it. I am tremendously proud of them, and I'd like you to give them a hand, if you would, my friends.

A couple of years ago the Delta Sun Peaks hotel was just nearing completion. It was under construction. It's by far the biggest structure that's been built at Sun Peaks so far, and it's a wonderful place with a lot of new facilities — beautiful new hotel. The fellows finishing it were in a hurry to finish it, so they had set up tiger torches to dry the exterior walls with plastic shrouding around them. Early in the evening the security guards noticed that one of the shrouds was melting, so they moved the tiger torch. Now, apparently they missed one, and the hotel caught on fire. Out came the little, tiny Sun Peaks volunteer fire depart-

ment, and that is a huge structure. It was burning ferociously, and these tiger torches were going off like bombs. They were firing hundreds of yards up the ski runs. They could have landed anywhere.

Again, that little volunteer fire department stood in there, watered down the adjacent hotels — windows popping, siding melting. They saved everything except the hotel that was on fire itself, and it's since been rebuilt. I was at the grand opening, and the president of the Delta chain mentioned that it was their, I think, 23rd hotel. I said it was actually the 22nd and the 23rd, because they had to build that one twice. But the volunteer fire department again held that fire at bay, and nothing else was lost.

As I say, I've been speaking to firefighters for ten years about their desire and their case for this presumption. I'm so glad we're doing it now. Last night at the reception I met a number of firefighters I'd never met before. One group was telling me about one of their colleagues who has just retired, and he has cancer. They told me that he was one of eight firefighters who trained in a training exercise in Richmond some years ago. Although science hasn't established yet that from one incident, one exposure like that, firefighters could contract cancers, they say that of those eight people, seven have already died of cancer. He's the eighth, and he has it.

Four of them died of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, which is a pretty rare cancer. Although it might be called anecdotal, it's awfully coincidental if it doesn't relate to the fact that they were all exposed at the same time, and they've all died. They've been very concerned for a long, long time that this presumption wasn't there and that families who have lost firefighters, or sick firefighters who know they're dying, have to have the additional stress and worry of not knowing if there's going to be coverage for their loved ones after they're gone.

The opposition has been raising a couple of issues that are in our hearts as well. I certainly think about volunteer firefighters and the fact that I have a whole string of communities where those people take these risks all the time. They never know for sure what's burning when they go to a structural fire. It is different with a forest fire. You know what's burning, generally, although there are some chemicals involved — fire retardants and so on — and there might be other things burning in the bush. But a forest fire is a bit more predictable — the combustible that's there.

We're told that the number of different compounds, chemical compounds, that are invented and that go into everything from plastic around us to basically everything that we're…. Even the wood of these desks, if it's not solid wood, may well be a particleboard that includes some chemicals. Firefighters never know what's in the smoke. It's probably changing, even if they knew, because those chemicals change when they interact with each other in the heat of a fire. Certainly, nobody can say for sure how many exposures or how much exposure it takes to cause cancer in an individual. But my volunteer firefighters in all those communities certainly go to burning buildings. Those buildings certainly contain things that they don't know about, either before or after, and they're at risk.

The government is not ruling out extending this presumption to volunteer firefighters. Some could argue — some actually have, I believe — that it's still early for us to be allowing the presumption at all, because science isn't completely conclusive. We have a lot of science results. We have the precedents in other provinces. We paid attention to what they say. We didn't want to wait until we had closer to a black or white answer. This government feels there is enough scientific evidence available. We're proceeding. Nobody's ruling out eventually, and maybe not in the distant future, extending the presumption to volunteer firefighters as well. I hope to see that happen.

Some folks would argue that a full-time professional firefighter probably is subject to greater risk and more frequent exposures than a volunteer firefighter, but it's not necessarily so. My little communities that I represent can't afford full-time, professional, paid firefighters, so these people do it for free or something close to it. I'm awfully pleased that they do and grateful and proud of that, and I'd like to see them have the same kind of coverage.

So the government will continue to gather data, and the presumption may well be extended, but we wanted to move now on the things we feel more certain about. I'm very pleased that the government's doing that.

The general principle for workers compensation legislation in British Columbia has been, and is, that changes which could affect entitlement to a benefit are not retroactive. There have been some exceptions, such as when legislation has been found to infringe on constitutional rights. But the approach in this bill, with limited retroactivity to April, is consistent with past practice in B.C. When Alberta and Saskatchewan allowed a presumption, they did not provide any retroactivity for their firefighter cancer presumptions, as we understand it.

You'll notice that the specific cancers for which the presumption is provided are listed in regulation rather than in the legislation itself. The reason for that is to allow for additions without having to come into the House and do legislation, if that is deemed appropriate, as our knowledge and the scientific evidence come to hand.

Just because a firefighter doesn't automatically have coverage because of the presumption doesn't mean that that firefighter's claim will be denied, either. The Workers Compensation Board is required to look at each case, and each case where people don't necessarily come under the presumption will still be adjudicated on a case-to-case basis. We don't want people to think there is no hope if they don't fit foursquare within what's set out in this legislation. People such as police officers or paramedics, who also get exposed to smoke and these hazards in situations they find themselves in — probably less frequently than firefighters — never-

theless can also present claims. They aren't covered by the presumption, but their cases also would be adjudicated on a case-to-case basis.

The non-inclusion of forest firefighters in the presumption is consistent with what other provinces have done thus far. Forest firefighters generally don't have the same exposures as firefighters who deal with structural fires, car fires, chemical spills and all of those things. But as some of the members opposite mentioned, there are fire retardants. There are various chemicals. They may well be dealing with a burning building as a result of a forest fire. Those things are all possible. Forest firefighters, again, are not barred from presenting claims to the Workers Compensation Board. They don't come under the scope of the presumption as this legislation's drafted.

This is a wonderful new piece of legislation in answer to a heartfelt need that was brought to us many times. It's far preferable to waiting until all of these other questions are answered, but those questions are still going to be considered.

Now, I hesitate to say anything negative when dealing with a piece of legislation that is so positive, but I do want to gently remonstrate with the members opposite that when nothing we present is ever quite good enough, according to the opposition, and we're always urged: "You should do further; you should do this also"…. The NDP had ten years in office to do this very thing, and I always wondered why the NDP didn't do it — really wondered that. So it's a little tough to take any criticism at all — and it's been pretty gently worded, but still — from the opposition saying: "You're not going far enough." Well, you didn't go anywhere on this matter in the ten years that you had.

So we're listening to you. We're concerned about the same things. But you've got to exercise a little patience and understanding. Whatever the reasons were that held your government back when you were government — talk to those people; some of them are still sitting with you on those benches — you'll understand why we can't move as far or as fast as we might actually like to move.

There are a couple other examples, like the earthquake-proofing of schools and dealing with the pine beetle infestation, but I don't want to detract from the good news of what we're working on today. I do want to say to the opposition: be patient on those things. Don't think that we don't want to extend the presumption further. We're going as far as we deemed appropriate with the scientific evidence that we've collected thus far.

In closing, obviously, I'm supporting this bill. I trust everybody is. It's one of those days when you can feel really good about being a legislator. A warm and heartfelt thank-you to firefighters everywhere and certainly in British Columbia.

M. Karagianis: I'm sure none of us took any of the previous comments as detracting in any way from the tone within the debate on this issue.

I actually stand to speak in favour of this legislation. In many ways, it's very gratifying for me to see this come before the House. I first learned of this issue and these presumptive cancers in the year 2000, actually, at a presentation to UBCM. As a councillor there, I took it very seriously to educate myself on all aspects of what was being presented to me by the Professional Fire Fighters Association of British Columbia at that time. In fact, together with a fellow councillor, who is now a member in this chamber as well, as Victoria-Hillside, we took it upon ourselves to champion this topic at UBCM and lobbied our fellow councillors and mayors and members of the UBCM to help support this resolution forward at UBCM on these presumptive cancers. So I feel like I have a nice history that's gone before me here. I have publicly supported this presumption-of-cancer legislation from its early days at UBCM.

Certainly over the ensuing years, lobbying for both my own fire department in the community where I was a councillor and for friends that I have in the industry, I've continued to watch the progress of this topic as it worked its way into government and through government's hands.

I did bring a resolution before my municipal council in the early 2000 years — in about 2002, I believe — and that was unanimously supported by my council members. Again, this was to further the support for this topic and this legislation to come before government and to reach the stage that it has today.

I think that we have reached a very good starting point with this legislation. I think that it's something we can all build on, and in fact, the general tone of support here shows that both sides of the House are keenly supportive of moving this legislation through. In fact, much of the debate that we've heard and much of the commentary we've heard here is really about ways to make this work and make it good legislation and lasting legislation on behalf of our firefighters.

Certainly, we've seen other provinces that have gone before us have comprehensive legislation. Some of it goes much further than what we're looking at here. I would hope that would be an example that we can follow and continue to build on, this legislation, and make it relevant in the future as circumstances change.

You know, our understanding of cancer and how cancer develops, how it is affected by our environment and how it's affected by our occupation, is much greater now than it ever was in the past. I expect that as time goes on with continued research, we will understand better how all of our occupations affect our health, especially these insidious diseases like cancer.

I would hope that in the future with this legislation — as we learn more and as we understand more fully how many of our protective services are affected by the duties that they do for us — we will see fit to continue to expand this legislation.

I do think that currently the inclusion of heart disease and lung disease in this…. It is one goal that I

would like to see included and considered as soon as possible. In a perfect world those two health hazards would also be included in this legislation. Certainly, if the opportunity comes to speak to an amendment to that effect, I will be championing that, whether that is in the very near future or whether that is sometime down the road. I think that these, also, are diseases that have been proven by science, have been included in other jurisdictions and would be an excellent addition to the written details of this legislation.

In addition, I also believe very firmly that all firefighters should be captured under this legislation. When I think of my own constituency, I actually have a huge variety of fire departments within my constituency — from the full-time professional firefighters that I have in Esquimalt; to the professional firefighters that work with the Department of National Defence; to the department in View Royal, which is a composite department with some professionally paid members as well as a number of volunteer members; through to the Western Communities, where many of the fire departments there are all volunteers in one form or another. I think that they, too, are exposed to exactly the same things as professional firefighters, and that they…. At some point in the discussion and further exploration of how this legislation will work, I would like to see it expanded to include those.

I know that at this point the Professional Fire Fighters Association has been a huge champion of this legislation and has brought it forward in its current iteration. I also know that they are not averse to seeing their fellow brethren who are volunteers also included in this. Again, it's a nuance of this legislation that would make it better, would make it more effective.

In addition to that, we've heard speakers before…. I know that speakers on this side of the House have talked about retroactivity, because in reality, this legislation has been a long time in coming. In those years that we have moved this through UBCM as a resolution and moved it forward into government's hands, the firefighters have been lobbying government to see this legislation brought to the stage that it is right now.

In those ensuing years, even in the five years that I have been working on this, many firefighters have contracted diseases. Firefighters have died of these diseases. I think that it's appropriate for us to look back and say that retroactivity is appropriate. If you look at the history of this legislation coming forward, it is a responsible act on our part to really give serious consideration to an appropriate retroactive aspect of the legislation.

In speaking just generally to the issue of debating bills like this coming forward, I would say that it's appropriate and right that all of us should be here working and striving to make this the most comprehensive legislation, the best legislation, that we can. In fact, cooperation is about that. It's about all of us pooling our resources, our concerns, our individual experiences and circumstances in our constituencies all together and adding those to the legislation. One of the things I learned at the municipal table over the last decade is that by putting all of these ideas together, we can create better legislation than what we started out with in the beginning. So I think all of the commentary that we've heard here from both sides of the House adds to a better law, at the end of the day.

I don't think there's any doubt in anyone's mind in this House that firefighters are the modern-day heroes for each and every one of us. Whether it be individual experiences in our own community; whether it be our contact with firefighters as first responders at a car accident, when there's a heart attack, when there's any kind of emergency in our communities; or whether it be the larger and much more spectacular events that took place around 9/11 — firefighters, for all of us, are the everyday heroes that save lives.

There's no question in my mind that we should be striving to provide them with the very best, the pinnacle, of legislative protection that we can. In fact, it's in our hands to do that right now.

I actually don't see that any of these things detract in any way. It's unfortunate that sometimes our partisan relationship on other issues flows over into how we view this legislation. I'd like to see us all move forward to make this the best possible legislation for the firefighters — not for us in the House, because we're not out there doing that. We're not out there sacrificing or, in fact, putting our lives or our health on the line every single day.

I think it's up to us to work together to make this legislation work. I'm happy to see it move forward, but certainly, there are some nuances that could be added to this that would make it better for the firefighters out there — maybe not as comfortable for us, but better for them, at the end of the day.

S. Simpson: First of all, I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to make a few comments in regard to Bill 11, which, as we know, provides the opportunity for legislative changes regarding presumptive cancers in firefighters. It's an essential piece of legislation, and I certainly congratulate the government for bringing it forward at this time.

It's something that I want to congratulate firefighters on, because we know that firefighters across British Columbia have worked long and hard in order to get to today and to accomplish what they have in terms of encouraging the government to bring this legislation forward. We know that firefighters across this province have advocated this issue with great passion. I've had the opportunity to speak to many firefighters in my own community in Vancouver. I appreciated the opportunity last evening to talk to other firefighters from across British Columbia and talk about this issue, among others.

They truly did advocate with real passion on this issue. Firefighter after firefighter told me that what this legislation was about for them was their families. It

was about providing security for their families so that should they be unfortunate enough to contract a cancer because of the work they do, there would be some protection for their families.

They talked about the reality of life span and how they had done their own analysis and research. While we know that most firefighters, generally, are probably quite a bit healthier or fitter than the general population, they still experience life spans five to seven years shorter than the general population. They realize that the reason for that has a lot to do with what they do for a living.

Vancouver firefighters told me a number of times about issues that they face in Vancouver. They talked about one of their brothers, Randy Musgrave, who died of cancer and was buried very recently by the Vancouver firefighters.

The president of the union, Rod McDonald, when I was speaking to him earlier today, talked about his father Socks McDonald, who was a brigade chief, and how he had passed away far too soon and about how important this was. When he talked to his family, called back and spoke to his family…. This is a very emotional time for his family, because they saw the work they had done and that this piece of legislation honours his father. I know he felt very strongly about that.

With this legislation, I want to agree with the comments that I think I heard the Minister of Labour make earlier when he was introducing this bill. He really talked about this piece of legislation being the foundation and that it was his hope and, presumably, the hope of the government to be able to build on this legislation to make it better and more comprehensive as time goes on. I would agree with the Minister of Labour that that opportunity is before us. There is an opportunity to build on what is a good foundation here.

There are three issues that I want to touch on briefly in regard to these. They've been mentioned on this side, and I know they've been mentioned across the way as well. Just as I get there, the comment I would make in regard to…. The member for Kamloops–North Thompson talked about whether we were being gently critical of this. I think that what we're doing is trying and very consciously not wanting to be critical but wanting to build on this.

As he spoke about his community and volunteer firefighters in his community, I know he'd be very happy at some time in the future to have them covered as well. As he said in his comments, he thinks they are deserving because of the excellent work they do in his community, as they do in communities across British Columbia.

I guess what we're saying on this side of the House in relation to that is that we think there are improvements that can be had here. Sometimes you want to capture the moment. We have the moment here with the legislation before us to capture that moment and to work together.

I do want to mention the three areas that have been commented on earlier by other members. The first really is the question of retroactivity. I would strongly encourage the government…. We will be having a further discussion of this in committee stage, but I would urge the government to look very closely at the question of retroactivity. I believe that in Manitoba with some cancers they go back to '92 in their retroactivity.

The issue here really is that we are making an acknowledgment today in this House with this legislation that there is an occupational hazard here for firefighters that leads to cancers and potentially to other illnesses as well. If we make that decision today — and it's the right decision that we're making and we would all agree on that — it seems to me that we then should be saying we acknowledge that for a number of years…. There needs to be a logical way to get back to what that period of retroactivity is, but for that period of time we need to acknowledge that others who went before the date of this legislation face those same challenges. They deserve some acknowledgment and acknowledgment in terms of coverage and protection by this legislation. I do hope that it's something that the government will consider as we move forward.

The second issue, and it comes back again to comments that others have made, is in relation to volunteers and the question around volunteers. There was a comment made, I believe, by the member for New Westminster, who spoke about a press release put out today by the fire chiefs, I believe, where they have called for coverage for volunteers. I suspect that's because, as we know…. Being a Vancouver member, we don't see volunteers, but I know that there are members on both sides of this House in whose communities the fire service is essentially a volunteer fire service with very few full-time firefighters in their communities.

For those people who are doing that work, I think it is important that we look at providing coverage and protections for them, as we do for the professional full-time firefighters. If there needs to be a discussion around who that coverage is for and how it gets crafted, I think that may very well be appropriate. A commitment to move forward on that is an important commitment to be made and made soon, I believe.

The third item is the list of illnesses, and clearly the two that have been spoken about that aren't on this list are heart and lung disease. I would hope that the government is looking at the incorporation of those at some point, sooner rather than later. I think what we need to do is recognize that there may in future be other diseases that come about as firefighters face new and more unique situations. They're entering into fires and that with a whole array of toxins and materials that 20 years ago they may not have faced. Today they're facing them, and they need to assure some protection.

I would hope that we would look at heart and lung in particular at this time but would have a very proactive approach to being able to revisit and review the

list, through medical officers or through those who have the expertise to do that, and adjust it accordingly when it's appropriate to make those adjustments.

I guess that…. I look forward to having this legislation passed. I look forward to the discussion we will have in committee stage, where we'll get an opportunity to talk in a little bit more detail about some of these matters where we think we're talking not about criticisms of what the government has put forward but about what we think are improvements that I believe members on both sides of this House would like to see.

I'm confident of that. The question just is: how do we get there? We would look forward to working with the government to make those improvements that I do believe all 79 people in this Legislature would like to see. So I'm looking forward to that.

I know from speaking to the firefighters in Vancouver who I've worked with closely on a number of issues in the past and am certainly pleased to be working with now that they're very excited. They're very proud of what they've accomplished, as are their colleagues from across British Columbia, and deservedly so. They've made real gains here in very tangible terms for the people of their profession.

I think all of us in this House can feel good about the work we're doing here. Again, as the member for Kamloops–North Thompson said, being able to deal with these kinds of substantive improvements for people who perform such heroic services on behalf of all British Columbians is a good thing to be able to do as a legislator. We don't always get to do those things.

I would agree with the member for Kamloops–North Thompson that it's a good day to be a legislator when you can make those kinds of improvements for people who clearly deserve them in doing their duty. I look forward to committee stage and maybe to things happening sooner rather than later on some of these other matters.

J. Horgan: It's a pleasure for me to rise today to speak in favour of Bill 11. Although I didn't speak with the Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner before coming in, I think I'll just declare to those in the House that I almost have a genetic predisposition to supporting firefighters. My brother Brian Horgan served the city of Victoria for 35 years as a firefighter, lost his thyroid to cancer — not on the list, but nonetheless, these are things that we can work at. My nephew Andrew Nelson is serving the people of Vancouver and fighting fires for the Vancouver fire department right now, as is my cousin Rob Zukovic in the Tri-Cities.

Also, as a youth growing up here in Victoria, I was a lacrosse player, as some of you may know. I know that the member for New Westminster is certainly aware of that. Again, with family lines into the fire hall and being a lacrosse player, it seemed almost inevitable that that's what I would do, but unfortunately, I don't like climbing ladders. So I ended up in the Legislature instead.

J. Horgan: The Minister of Labour has some humorous comments, as always, and I thank him for that.

But it is an honour and a privilege to stand here today and speak in favour of this legislation. As I said, my brother Brian lost his thyroid to cancer some years back, and of course, he was convinced, as was his physician, that it was a result of his vocation as a firefighter here in Victoria. Although it is not on the list of cancers covered by this amendment to the Workers Compensation Act, I'm hopeful that over time we can move and add to that list. Those that have spoken before me have talked about lung, heart and other cancers that certainly can be linked scientifically and medically to firefighting, and I'm hopeful that over time we'll be able to get to that.

A couple of other issues that I want to touch on in my remarks today deal with the retroactivity question. It is commendable that the government has brought this legislation forward today, and it is commendable that they've used other jurisdictions like Manitoba and Saskatchewan as models, but they did neglect in this bill to include retroactivity. Again, I'm hopeful that over time, as we find our place with the act when it is proclaimed and we see what the uptake is with respect to the profession, then we can start to look at other forms of cancer and the retroactivity.

The last issue that's important to me as the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca is the absence of volunteers. There are a number of professional firefighters in Malahat–Juan de Fuca. In the city of Langford, the Langford force is a combined volunteer professional force, but other communities in my constituency — Otter Point; Sooke; of course, the Malahat firefighters; Mill Bay; Cowichan Bay — are all staffed by volunteers and are not covered by this amendment to the Workers Compensation Act. I think it's incumbent upon those of us from rural or semi-rural communities to remind our urban friends of the importance of volunteerism, particularly with respect to firefighting in communities right across this province.

Also, those who risked their lives and their limbs in the Okanagan fighting forest fires are not included in this legislation. I know from comments of other members that it was argued that one firefighter in one season on the line fighting forest fires may well be exposed to more toxins in a summer than some firefighters are exposed to in a career. So this is another area where I think that over time, certainly, the government will want to consider expanding the scope of this legislation to include those that volunteer to go into harm's way on our behalf for the benefit of all British Columbians.

I'd like to go back to this genetic connection to firefighting and particularly to my brother Brian, who raised this issue with me long before I was elected to this place. When I said to him that I was going to seek election, the first issue on his agenda — although he's not a constituent of mine; he's a constituent of the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin — was the introduction and passage of this legislation. So I'm pleased that

before Christmas of my first session in the Legislature I'm able to say: "I delivered, brother. I was there for you." So if you're watching at home, brother Brian, you've got what you needed. We'll see what we can do about adding to that list, and of course, as a retired firefighter, the retroactivity is important.

I haven't heard from the Minister of Labour, but the Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner hasn't rung my BlackBerry with respect to these family linkages, so I think I'm probably okay.

J. Horgan: Thanks. The member from Hillside reminds me that my pocket is ringing.

I'd like to go back again to the volunteers for a moment. It has to do with hazardous materials. In the lower Island there is no capacity. I just met, with my colleagues from Saanich South and Esquimalt-Metchosin, with firefighters from the lower Island, and there's no capacity in the Greater Victoria area to deal with hazardous materials. If there is a hazardous materials event in the south Island, we need to call on the services of the Department of National Defence at Naden or to Vancouver and the lower mainland for assistance. This is particularly troubling when we consider that the only route in and out of Victoria is the Malahat Drive running through the heart of my constituency.

Some years back — I think it was 2000 or 2001 — there was a propane accident on the Malahat Drive. It closed the road for a considerable period of time, and the volunteer firefighters of the Malahat department were called on to render first-responder assistance and to deal with this horrific catastrophe of a propane tanker basically overturning and releasing noxious and toxic gases into the area. We didn't have a capacity in Victoria to deal with that. Certainly, the Malahat volunteers didn't have the capacity to deal with that, but they did nonetheless.

What was the impact on their health and safety at the time? It's incalculable, certainly by me, but I know all members will agree that when individuals volunteer to put themselves into harm's way like that, then certainly we want to be considering what we can do as legislators to protect them, to ensure that if there is a personal catastrophe in their lives as time goes by, the last thing they have to concern themselves about is proving to the Workers Compensation Board or the new entity that any cancers they may have succumbed to were a result of their professional and, in this case, volunteer activity.

I hope members will consider the importance of adding volunteers through this legislation. I see the Minister of Labour here, the sponsoring minister. Perhaps he might want to consider adding that at committee stage. I know other members have spoken about it, and I'm certain that he would have the support of me and other members on this side of the House and, I'm sure, rural members. The member for Kamloops–North Thompson would have volunteers in his constituency, as would the member for Peace River North. This is an issue that affects all of us in this House, all of us from rural British Columbia, and it's an important issue.

I don't want for a minute to take away from this historic step. It's very important. It's going to be supported by myself and all members on this side of the House, but these are issues that do need to be addressed. We're taking the opportunity to discuss them now so government has at its disposal confirmation that there are issues, which weren't addressed in this amendment, that could have been addressed in this amendment and could well still be at committee stage if the minister has the inclination and can get his staff working on those amendments in the time we have prior to committee stage.

The list of cancers included in the legislation is not comprehensive, but it is significant. Of course, I know that others have read them into the record. I'll just take the opportunity to read the seven that are covered: brain, bladder, kidney, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, uterine, leukemia and colorectal. Although that's not a comprehensive list, they are the top priorities of those who have been advocating. Professional firefighters have been advocating for this for a number of years in British Columbia. That's the top of their list, but it's not the entire list. I know other members are going to speak to that in the time available to them this evening, but I do believe it's important that it be on the record that although this is a tremendous first step, it is not as complete as it could have been.

In our discussions today with firefighters from the lower Island, we had a few laughs. We talked about the fun side of fighting fires. I think that for all of us as youth, as kids…. I know the member from Hillside and I were remarking about that first red fire truck we got for Christmas many years ago. It puts you in mind of a vocation that is glamorous, that is exciting, but it is also an enormous, enormous contribution to a community — to put yourself at risk, to risk life and limb, to go into a burning building, to attend traffic accidents, and other activities that are undertaken by firefighters.

As I say, my brother Brian used to come and tell me stories of an ordinary shift, and of course, he'd talk about the card games. Every now and again they'd play a little bit of Pan, I think the name was. They played with about 15 decks of cards. I could never understand what they were doing, but that was just to pass the time before they risked their lives.

I can't, again, impress enough upon this House how proud I am to be able to stand here today and speak in favour of legislation. As legislators, we are not necessarily putting ourselves at risk when we walk into this building, although these revolving doors are tricky. Every now and again I think I might catch a toe and do a face-plant into the red carpet, but that's a small risk compared to the challenges of firefighters in our community.

So with that, I'd like to thank the House for indulging me this opportunity to speak and to assure the

We are immensely proud of our front-line emergency responders provincewide. The vast changes over the past years not only in how fires are fought, not only in what increased chemicals are released during modern burns but also in people's expectations, response times and crew capabilities have placed unbelievable physical pressures on our firefighters.

Science has shown that they are at risk in several health areas. Everyone has worked long and hard to achieve recognition of these issues, because of the incredible changes in every industry today that have led to major updates in how we do business countrywide.

I am delighted with Bill 11, as I am delighted and proud of not only our Delta firefighters but of all emergency responders.

R. Fleming: I, too, along with the previous member, thank the House for the opportunity to speak to Bill 11 and recognize the importance of this bill and its passage and also the journey before getting to this House — the debates I was able to participate in.

In fact, I sponsored a motion during my time as councillor at the city of Victoria on this issue to take to the Union of B.C. Municipalities. I remember that discussion amongst the couple of thousand of delegates, before those delegates at the 2002 meeting we had there, and hearing the tremendous support for the firefighting profession from local government leaders from across British Columbia.

You know, of course, firefighters…. Our recognition societywide, particularly in North America but around the world, for the bravery, courage and professionalism they bring to that job has been enhanced, undoubtedly, by the events of 9/11 and in British Columbia by the forest fires we had — the drastic ones, beginning with Kelowna and continuing in this recent season. But I think that even without that recognition, the support was there amongst local government leaders for our firefighters, because in society we all ask those people we entrust with that job to be there at a moment's notice, to be prepared, to be ready, to save lives, to face danger on a regular basis. I think that's why I'm so proud as a member of the Legislature to be speaking to this bill today.

It is now time that this House is going to recognize that in regards to the occupational hazards that firefighters face as a result of their career and as a result of the service they give to the public. The bill finally does amend the Workers Compensation Act to provide a list of cancers for consideration that will give firefighters the benefit of the doubt when they face tribunals, when they have claims for the tragic disease of cancer that is connected to their occupation. That is why the bill is progressive and is supportable. It gives firefighters that ability, and it gives them the recognition of the carcinogens they face on a regular basis due to the very nature of their job — the smoke inhalation that is part of that job.

Let me tell you, Madam Speaker, that as the MLA for Victoria-Hillside, I have the privilege to represent two professional fire departments in my riding — two separate locals of the IAFF, the International Association of Firefighters, at those halls. One is the district of Saanich; the other is the city of Victoria. The city of Victoria's fire department history is very long. In fact, they're just two years away from their 150th anniversary. A fire department in the city of Victoria is, in fact, older than the incorporation date of the city itself and, for that matter, older than the founding of this province and, indeed, this country of ours.

That is the history of this profession — this profession that has protected citizens' lives over the years. I have, as a former city councillor…. I served five and a half years on my council, and I can't tell you the number of times during that time where there were significant fires in this city — fires that threatened lives, fires that unleashed potential contaminants into our environment.

There was a fire in 2003 over in Victoria West. It was a lumberyard with a hardware store attached to it. Everything went up in flames. There was obviously a lot of fire accelerant in that fire that produced a lot of danger, but there were also other things. There were pesticides. There were oils and compounds and toxic materials on site. All of that drained down towards the harbour. Firefighters had to get into the water itself and boom off the waterway after they had knocked down the fire on the site of that hardware store. Those firefighters had to get in the water, into literally a toxic soup, to try and prevent widespread contamination in the marine environment and to clean the fire up.

There are a number of old buildings in the city. Many, many notable fires in recent years where we're dealing with mixed-use buildings that have businesses on the ground floor and residential upper suites…. Those have been ones where firefighters have gone in — and this is just in the last couple of years — and pulled people out of those fires, and people have lived another day because of what we asked those people to do.

But it's not just the old buildings. It's the modern buildings, in particular. When those go alight…. Today's buildings involve an incredible amount of things like plastics and compounds, coatings, paints, building materials, building treatments on the exterior — all kinds of known and unknown carcinogens in those building products. That is the reality of what we ask our firefighters to be prepared for every day in our fire departments in this city of Victoria and across B.C. I think that is the motivation and why both sides of the House are looking forward to passage of Bill 11.

But I think that opportunities like this only come around all too infrequently, and we would be remiss if we didn't try and get the best version of this bill that we can. I think previous members have already spoken to some things that are not in this bill, and we have the opportunity at committee stage to amend the bill so that we get it right this time.

I think the previous member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca spoke about the volunteer fire department in his riding. I know that speaks to the situation in many of the constituencies of the 79 members of this House — that they have volunteer fire departments. Other provinces have included volunteers in the legislation. Manitoba is one such province. I think we would be wise to do that too, given the reality of rural British Columbia, given the reality of how many fires there are in rural British Columbia. I think that that is something worth exploring and worth further debate at the committee stage.

The other is retroactivity. I think this is one issue that is incredibly important to older firefighters in particular. This bill only references April 11, 2005, as the date of incorporation from which your occupational illness moves forward in terms of approving your case and getting compensation. I think that another date…. I know that in other provinces…. I believe that in Saskatchewan, when they brought a recent bill like this into being, they went over ten years back as a fair start date. We may even want to look further than that so that older firefighters who have been serving the public for their careers and who unfortunately may develop cancer can have the entire span of their career looked at and the exposures to risk and contaminants that they've encountered in their job.

I think, also, the list of cancers…. Others have spoken to this too. I've just mentioned some of the unknown and known carcinogens that are in the building materials that are used today. I think that erring on the side of comprehensiveness in terms of how many types of cancer are included in this bill would be wise for this House to consider. I think that's the right thing for us to do as legislators.

A final issue is that despite those potential shortcomings in the bill, we need to recognize the significance of being in the House today to discuss this issue, of being able to work on good legislation like Bill 11. I would encourage all of my colleagues to consider some of the suggestions that members have made so that we get this bill right — so that our firefighters are given the attention they need, the professional recognition, and so that when the tragedy of cancer strikes the working men and women who fight fires in this province, they won't be left out by this legislation. Let's get it right, so it includes all of the professionals and the volunteers who fight fires in British Columbia.

R. Sultan: As the others, I am honoured to have the opportunity to speak in support of this bill, which demonstrates the respect and the enthusiasm we have for people such as firefighters, who are trained and willing to put their own lives on the line for the rest of us. I think it's part of the same phenomenon of respect that many of us — at least I, certainly — extend to the police, to our nurses, to the mine-rescue teams, to the paramedics and to all of those who we call upon in emergencies and need. It's hard to articulate how deep this sentiment is in all of us, and I think we've heard the words today to illustrate that.

As the other members have mentioned, we had a little reception last night to celebrate this great bill, and I couldn't help but observe to some of our guests — and I guess we were the guests, and the firefighters were the hosts — that some of us politicians, at least, might feel some envy realizing that in all the public opinion polls these folks, these men and women, rank just about at the top. I hate to think where the politicians typically stand, but I felt that maybe by rubbing shoulders with them, perhaps some of that lustre would rub off on us. I don't know if that's a vain hope or not.

On a slightly more serious note, I couldn't help but reflect as I watched these men and women — so fit, so committed, so ready to swing into action — that I'd seen when my own wife needed their assistance and the North Vancouver city fire department was there within minutes and did their best. They couldn't save her, but that moment will always stay in my memory, as they did their best.

So we applaud these professionals for the service they render to humanity, and I would be remiss if I didn't, in particular, acknowledge those from my own constituencies who were present: Tony D'angelo and Gord Howard from the West Van fire department — the particular leadership role they played in this has already been acknowledged by other members; and Kevin MacAuley and Brian Leavold of the district of North Van department. I had some interesting discussions with Dale Truscott of Port Coquitlam and Ted Greves of Nanaimo — discussing what's next.

What's next? Well, of course the immediate agenda item, as many of the speakers have already articulated, would be further expanding the scope of the presumption principle. I'm sure that the government and all of us will ponder that possibility further even in the debate immediately ahead of us.

But I was interested in what they had to say about other issues. If we are to improve their lot, I think we would improve their capacity to do their job, and it doesn't always necessarily confine itself to these issues of medical hazard. In particular, just mentioning in passing…. We don't want to get into other areas, but I think the whole issue of dispatch is an important issue where I am persuaded that lives are unnecessarily at risk, and I think this Legislature should soberly consider those issues at some more appropriate moment.

Also, the issues of training, mandate and protocol as they affect firefighters. I see absolutely no sense, as a former educator myself, in not allowing these firefighters to be trained to the absolute limit of their ability, and I am led to believe that that isn't necessarily always

the way it works. If that is so, I think we need to have a chat with the people at the Justice Institute and the governing bodies to see what might be done about it.

But this is not the occasion to get into what I think, in the broad sweep of things, are important but side issues. We are here to celebrate a great act, and I support it with enthusiasm. Echoing the comments of my colleague from Kamloops, I would urge all of us not to detract from the wonder and glory of this moment by saying: "Well, it's okay, but it's not good enough." I think it's a great bill, and I support it with enthusiasm.

R. Chouhan: Given that we won't have much time, I'll be brief. Much has been said about this bill by my colleagues on both sides, and I rise to support this bill. It's a bill that we cannot sit back and not talk about it. I just want to express my thanks to all the firefighters all across B.C. who put their lives on the line every day to protect ours.

It's so important that we express our gratitude to all those members, the firefighters located all over B.C. to make sure that we do everything in our power to have the laws to protect them and to extend the coverage that they've needed for so long. It's about time that we talk about this coverage under the Workers Compensation Act to make sure that firefighters are covered for all the possibilities under all the possible diseases which are caused by their hazardous work conditions.

I just want to say this. Although we all support Bill 11, I want to extend and lend my support to all my colleagues' suggestions that we should also bring the volunteer firefighters under the coverage of Bill 11 and that we also make sure those firefighters — it doesn't matter if they are in the Vancouver area or in Kamloops — all get the same protection and the same coverage.

With this, I would simply like to say that we must do our best, as we are going to be supporting this. It's an opportunity that I could not miss, and I express my deepest, deepest gratitude for all the work the firefighters do. Again, thank you very much.

D. Thorne: I rise today in support of Bill 11, a bill to support our firefighters and an issue that I have had a long history with as a councillor in Coquitlam and a member of the board of directors of the GVRD and two years sitting at the labour relations board of the GVRD when this issue was coming and going. That was two to three years ago, and there was a lot of support then in the municipalities for cancer presumption and for the kinds of programs that many other Canadian provinces had.

In fact, in 2003 the Union of B.C. Municipalities passed cancer presumption and the beginnings of Bill 11 unanimously. From there it went back to the municipalities for discussion. Around the same time, the GVRD labour relations board and the board got involved with this issue. The waters got a little muddied around that time, and it took some quite fancy leg work by two or three people, including myself, on the labour relations board to stall what looked like the end of the beginning of this bill.

We insisted that it be taken back to the individual councils across the GVRD for discussion and voting in the councils rather than at the labour relations board. At that time, the vote went through. It went back to the councils, and one by one all of the GVRD came out in support of cancer presumption for firefighters. From there it went back to WCB, back to the GVRD and finally to this esteemed House.

It's absolutely my pleasure today to be speaking in favour of this bill. I do want to say that I will support, at the committee stage, an amendment for retroactivity, because we have a lot of very good firefighters that are falling through the cracks right now.

L. Krog: One hesitates to compliment the government too often, lest their heads so swell that they won't be able to make their way into the chamber. But I do wish to offer my sincere compliments to the Minister of Labour.

L. Krog: Absolutely. The member for Kamloops–North Thompson is always so wise in his comments and heckling. I do so appreciate his kind words.

That aside, this is the right thing to do, and it has been a long time in coming. As I said to a number of the firefighters that I spoke to yesterday, they may indeed be in one of the few professions or occupations left in our communities that enjoy general public respect and are held in such high regard. They're never seen as greedy in their demands. They are seen as true servants of the public, people who put their lives at risk. It is therefore, because they put their lives at risk on a daily basis for the public in what everyone now acknowledges, and what this bill acknowledges, is one of the unhealthiest occupations in our society….

All of us pay to some extent with our flesh and blood in our occupations or our professions in our working lives. Carpenters end up with elbows that don't work anymore; carpet layers, knees that don't function. People who work in pulp mills suffer from all kinds of cancers. We understand all of that.

We have in place a workers compensation system that is supposed to reflect the values we in society place on those who are the victims, if you will, of workplace illnesses and injuries. Yet firefighters, who we know from all of the studies suffer very high rates of cancer, are only now getting that recognition in terms of presumption, which is the main thrust of this legislation. So it's the right and proper thing to do.

If it is the right and proper thing to do for those who are employed full-time in these positions, then surely it is the right and proper thing to do to acknow-ledge the thousands of volunteer firefighters in this province who likewise subject themselves to this highly dangerous occupation. There is no moral or

legal justification for denying the extension of this coverage to those who voluntarily serve our communities.

Indeed, I would have thought that from this government in particular, which has placed such an emphasis on the value of volunteerism in our society, which somehow suggests that we should have so much of what has been traditionally seen as government services delivered by volunteers as opposed to paid public servants…. It is surprising to me that when they now have a concrete opportunity to extend to volunteers in our community, who don't simply go out and look after the reception duties at the local sexual assault centre or perhaps clean up a stretch of roadway, but who actually go into situations where they put life and limb at risk…. Surely it is not too much to ask that we extend the presumption that this bill provides to full-time paid firefighters to those volunteers in our community as well.

Secondarily, obviously the same argument applies with respect to retroactivity. We now acknowledge in this province that the internment of the Japanese Canadians was a wrongful act. We acknowledge that the head tax placed on Asians coming into this country was a wrongful thing. We acknowledge all of that. In some cases we've made remedies as a society, as a collective.

I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest today…. When you consider how many firefighters are suffering today from the effects of their occupation on our behalf, surely it is not unreasonable to suggest that we make this legislation retroactive. If it is appropriate to benefit those who are in the occupation now and develop cancer after, surely it is appropriate to allow those who are already suffering from cancer to enjoy the benefit of this presumption. Surely no one who puts their life on the line should be faced with having an uphill battle with workers compensation in order to receive the benefits that this House, by virtue of this bill, recognizes are appropriate.

Hon. Speaker, I will support the bill. I will certainly support appropriate amendments to it as well. But in fairness, I want to close by again saying: compliments to the Minister of Labour and to this government for doing this at long last.

S. Hawkins: I rise in support of this bill. I rise in support of the many heroes in our community that go into situations that I've heard many members describe — situations that not all of us would go into willingly, but they do it in the course of their line of duty.

As my colleague from Kamloops–North Thompson talked about earlier, we lived through that firestorm, and it was a pretty eye-opening experience. I heard members describe how fire stations across the province sent trucks and help into the interior. I think that at the time, in August 2003, there were eight interface fires burning across the interior alone. I must say, you know, we got a firsthand view of what the firefighters go through day in and day out. They may not see fires every day, but when they do, they certainly put themselves in situations that are potentially very destructive to their health. I heard members speak about the chemical and other contaminants that they're exposed to.

I support this government taking forward their years and years of lobbying on behalf of their members and coming up with what I consider a fairly reasonable presumption, rebuttable presumption, with the list of diseases that have been described in this bill that WCB and WorkSafe B.C. will cover. I have to say that I have talked to firefighters year in, year out. I believe this is now the tenth year that we've met with firefighters. From the ones I have spoken to, certainly in my own community and the ones that have made presentations, I believe they're comfortable with what's in front of us in this bill as well.

I do say congratulations to the Labour Minister for putting this together and bringing it forward. I look forward, certainly, to committee stage and further debate on providing us more information on how this bill will unfold. I rise to say I will be supporting this bill.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Minister of Labour and Citizens' Services closes debate.

Hon. M. de Jong: I hope I frequently say this, but I say it today as genuinely as I can. I have listened very carefully to virtually all of the speakers, and I appreciate very much not just the substance of their remarks but the tenor with which they are brought to this House. I appreciate, first and foremost, the acknowledgment of and support for conceptually moving ahead with something for which the evidence is clear, and the willingness to confer upon the bill that support at this early stage in the debate process, in second reading.

I also appreciate the fact that there are questions that derive from the content of the bill itself. In recognizing that, I hope all members will accept my assurance to them that, broadly speaking, there are three issues. Each one of them is an issue that has caused a degree of internal debate and discussion and struggle in terms of determining where and how to resolve some of those questions.

I might just for a moment offer my précis of what I think I heard during the course of an excellent afternoon debate. There has been concern expressed around the question of retroactivity insofar as the bill employs a legislative technique for imposing retroactivity. It does so in a limited way, back to early this year. The reality, of course, is that any time a legislature imposes a retroactive date, it is generally arbitrary. Certainly in a case like this, by its very nature, whatever date one selects, there is an argument and, perhaps even worse, an individual or individuals who are excluded because of the arbitrary nature of the date. I won't deny that, and I won't try to argue that.

The only additional observation I can offer to members, of course, is that in this case, whatever that date is — and we have obviously selected one and in-

cluded it in the legislation — it does not operate to deny coverage. It does, however, operate in a way that would preclude, for those who fall outside that period, the benefit of the presumption that this bill creates. That is not insignificant, because the presumption itself we feel is a very significant step forward. That is not to dismiss in any way, shape or form the nature of the observations or the critique that has been offered, but it is also to point out that we are not absolutely precluding people from the coverage.

I should make this point as well. I did hear a couple of comments during the course of the debate which suggested that because an on-the-ground incident had occurred in 2003 or 1999 or whatever the date was, because of the limited retroactivity, that firefighter would be denied the benefit of the presumption. Of course, that is not so, and I think most members understand that the triggering date is the date of diagnosis, not the notion of the events that may have contributed to it. Still, that does not…. For an individual who was diagnosed prior to April of this year, that will be of little comfort insofar as their ability to make use of the presumption.

I heard comments — and, I thought, thoughtful comments — about the list of prescribed illnesses, and I hope members will also accept this statement from me. The fact that those prescribed illnesses are, firstly, included in a regulation that I think I tabled before the House, so members have the benefit of looking at it, is I hope confirmation of the fact that the government does contemplate the very real possibility that that list will need to be and should be expanded. So what we are trying to do as best we can, responsibly dealing with the body of scientific evidence that is before us, is move now, recognizing that as that body of evidence grows and the body of data is greater, we can, where appropriate, add to that list. I think members during the course of the debate indicated two additional forms of cancer.

In some cases the regulation that we have as part of this bill places us ahead of other provinces, and in two cases, I believe, there are one or two provinces that list cancers that are not included here. I do ask members to be cognizant of the fact that we have purposely tried to design this in a way that will ease the formatting or the procedural requirements for adding to that list, where the conclusive argument can be made.

Lastly, I'm obliged to members of the House who offered their thoughts around the question of volunteers. I will not hesitate to say to the House that that is perhaps the aspect of this that I find most vexing and even most troubling. The test here, of course, is exposure to risk, and a number of members have made that observation during the course of their debate. I continue to struggle — as a member of the Legislature and cabinet, sponsoring the initiative here — with the question: are we properly addressing the exposure to the risk?

There is an ongoing debate, and members will know from the schedule that's attached…. Even in the case of a full-time, paid firefighter, to qualify for the presumption, there is the requirement that they have practised for a certain number of years, and it depends on the particular cancer involved. There can be a compelling argument that if that exposure has been the same and the only difference is that someone has not been paid for that exposure, then I am in no way suggesting to members that that isn't a legitimate component that we should seek to try and account for. I haven't done it yet, and that's the legislation we have here.

We're working with some other jurisdictions. One of those jurisdictions actually took some steps yesterday, while we were celebrating the tabling of this bill. I hope that provides members with some measure of assurance that in all three cases I take their submissions very seriously, and even more so insofar as the observations they have made during this debate around the volunteer firefighters, who comprise a goodly portion of the folks that protect society from fire….

We will, I'm certain, have ongoing debate around these points and maybe even a few more in the committee stage. I would like to close by again paying tribute to the professional firefighters association that maintained a vigilant approach to ensuring that this day would arrive and, also, to members of the chamber for what I consider to have been a very bright spot in the history of debate in this chamber during this afternoon.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 11, Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2005, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. de Jong: Noting the hour, I move the House stand recessed until 6:35 p.m.

Hon. M. de Jong: Madam Speaker, in this chamber I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, it's the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

Hon. S. Hagen: I rise to discuss Vote 18. I would like to take this opportunity to introduce the staff that will be with me for the discussion of these estimates. They may not all be with me now, but they will be from time to time: my deputy minister, Alison McPhail; Mark Sieben, who is the director for regional operations; Arn van Iersel, who is the associate deputy minister; Kim Henderson, assistant deputy minister; Alan Markwart, assistant deputy minister; Robin Syme, assistant deputy minister; Sarf Ahmed, executive director of finance and corporate services; and Lenora Angel, assistant deputy minister.

To begin with, I'd like to talk briefly about the broader budget of which this vote is a vital part. Budget 2005 reinforces the direction and the determination that over the last four years helped us to turn our province around, and it sets a course for a brighter future. When introducing Budget 2005, Minister Taylor noted that it's balanced in every sense, and I know British Columbia families see it that way too. It represents continuity in our vision and our goals.

Today we are poised to move beyond economic revitalization to balance sound fiscal management with an expanded range of sustainable choices — choices that are focused clearly on the priorities that British Columbians have told us they hold most dear.

The Ministry of Children and Family Development takes responsibility for addressing many of those priorities, and we're fortunate to have a renewed, clear mandate from the Premier. Our plan for the province over the next decade includes five great goals. The success of each goal is essential in supporting the success of the others. But I've found the first, second and third goals bear particular relevance to the Ministry of Children and Family Development. Our first goal is to make British Columbia the best-educated, most literate jurisdiction on the continent. Our second goal is to lead the way in North America in healthy living and physical fitness, and our third great goal is to build the best system of support in Canada for people with disabilities, special needs, children at risk and seniors.

These are ambitious goals. They clearly demonstrate our government's commitment to all children, youth and adults, including those with special needs and their families. In my second term as Minister of Children and Family Development, I believe the great goals bode well for all British Columbians in whose lives government plays a particularly important role.

The vote for ministry operations, which includes a $108 million budget increase this year, is integral to our plans to support these goals. Accordingly, I want to relate my ministry's current and expanding activities to this blueprint for the golden decade ahead. Before I do, however, I want all members to understand that the ministry's budget increase represents a true step forward. Today we're poised to add funding in areas that will make a real difference in people's lives.

The first great goal is to make British Columbia the best-educated, most literate jurisdiction on the continent. My colleagues the Ministers of Education and of Advanced Education will have a lot to say about how we'll achieve that goal, and all indicators are that we're on our way. But my ministry will be expanding its role in laying the foundation for those ministries' efforts.

Members will recall that in the throne speech, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor noted that when we speak of lifelong learning, we must remember that from the moment a child enters the world, they are learning. We recognize that, and in partnership with the federal government, we're making a historic commitment to early learning and child care. Incidentally, I want to stress that our government has provided and will continue to provide significant provincial funding for child care. In fact, our contribution to child care capital funding is the highest it's ever been in this province. That funding helps providers to offer more spaces, improve facilities and train staff. It's critical to building our capacity to maximize the benefits for parents and providers alike of the new federal funding that's now in hand.

This year about $75 million, more than half of the ministry's total budget increase, will go to early learning and child care. Last month we announced major increases to our year one spending priorities for the new early learning and child care agreement — child care subsidies, operating funds and capital funds. The subsidy increase came into effect on October 1. They include a jump in the income threshold for full subsidy to $38,000 from $21,000. This is a remarkable increase.

Incidentally, these subsidy increases build on a strong commitment this government made at the beginning of this year. In January we expanded eligibility and increased the child care subsidies ourselves so that rates would meet or exceed all previous levels in B.C.

October's subsidy enhancements as well as a 36-percent increase in funding to licensed operators represent another great step for children and families. These increases are only the first majority opportunity that has come from the ELCC agreement so far.

This fall the Ministry of Children and Family Development, in joint consultation with the Ministry of Education, is engaging stakeholders and key partners across the province, and I'm pleased that I have a Minister of State for Childcare and early learning that will assist in these deliberations.

The goal is to develop priorities for B.C.'s action plan for years two through five. I've already received many valuable and impassioned suggestions on how to allocate those funds, and I expect many more. Having said that, our core priorities for early learning and child care funding will not waver. Among them is a commitment to supporting children with special needs to participate fully in child care — what we call supported child development. We want to see more chil-

dren with special needs sharing early childhood experiences with peers across the spectrum of ability, and I believe those experiences will be enriching for all the children involved.

We've seen a number of innovative programs emerge in recent years that promote empathy and connectedness as well as inclusion. One, for example, brings infants into classrooms around B.C. throughout the school year to interact with young pupils. Roots of Empathy was founded by a former kindergarten teacher in Newfoundland, who noticed that an absence of empathy was the common denominator in the violence she saw in families. Mary Gordon has since received the Order of Canada for her work in education, and her remarkable program is building empathy among children in British Columbia, Nova Scotia and elsewhere.

Through that program, kids are learning about compassion and building a sense of community and the value of every one of us. Planting these seeds of empathy at an early age is vital, and I believe that's an additional benefit of supporting child development — teaching our children that each of them has gifts to be appreciated and developed.

Having the best-educated generation in our province's history means respecting and maximizing every child's abilities, and the ministry is keenly focused on leveraging budget and federal dollars to make it happen.

Our government's second great goal is to lead the way in North America in healthy living and physical fitness. This is a multi-faceted challenge that will require an interministerial approach. Currently, a number of ministries, including this ministry, are exploring how best to partner with the Ministry of Health to provide healthy living.

Together our efforts will build on ActNow B.C., a partnership-based health promotion platform that helps British Columbians make healthy lifestyle choices. ActNow B.C. was announced earlier this spring, and today many related strategies and proposals are in place, while others are taking shape. The potential benefits are immense, with the payback for our investment measurable both in human potential and in dollars saved as a result of healthier choices. This is particularly obvious to many of those on the front lines in my ministry who see and deal with children impacted by exposure to alcohol and drugs in the womb, or by neglect, poor nutrition and other challenges in their early years.

As we strive towards and start realizing success in our second great goal, we will not only rescue the potential of countless children who might otherwise see their potential cut short early in their lives, but we will gain the ability to reinvest reactive funding to proactively help other British Columbians.

The majority of my ministry's other new investments support the third great goal: to build the best system of support in Canada for people with disabilities, special needs, children at risk and seniors. Traditionally, this ministry has delivered services to British Columbians with developmental disabilities. However, as members know, existing services devolved to Community Living British Columbia earlier this year. This new Crown agency now leads the transformation of those services, aided by an increased budget for adult community living services. I'll expand on that when Vote 19, the adult community living services vote, is up for debate.

My ministry is one of the keys in developing the best system of supports for children and youth with special needs, including those who need major medical, health, educational and social supports. As a province, we currently spend about $450 million every year to deliver timely, high-quality early childhood development, child care and supports to children with special needs and their families. Over the next three years the funding for services to children with special needs will grow by $141 million, with $42 million of that coming to this ministry. The extra funding will dramatically enhance services for many children with special needs and their families.

A few examples, Madam Chair. By fiscal 2007, up to 1,000 children with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder and other developmental behavioral conditions will receive new intervention and support services, such as assistance to develop their life skills, and 2,500 more kids will benefit from physiotherapy, speech-language pathology and other needed intervention and therapies. We'll also enhance specialized supports ranging from mobility orientation training for deaf-blind preschool children to services that help blind youth transitioning into adulthood. We'll see respite care for up to 800 more hard-working families of children with special needs. Overall, the new funds will enable children with special needs to get the support they need for a better start in life.

To that end, I'd like to acknowledge the Health and Education Ministries as partners in maximizing the value of extra funding for children and youth with special needs.

Working together, these three ministries are breaking down their individual silos to ensure more holistic, seamless delivery. Along the way, they're streamlining administration and preventing duplication so precious resources are not wasted. More importantly, the interministry approach is putting the focus on better serving children and youth with special needs. By improving diagnosis and assessment of conditions like FASD and by enhancing support to children with special needs in our schools, government is committed to helping all children make the most of their potential.

Children at risk are also recognized in the third great goal, and one of the best ways we can support them is to support vulnerable families. To this end, we're putting $26 million more into child and family development over three years. This funding will support front-line social workers in achieving their daily goals of keeping our children and youth safe. Family networks will be strengthened so that more children

and youth are cared for and nurtured in their families. Today 15 percent fewer children are in care than in mid-2001. Contrast that with the 45-percent increase we saw in children in care during the latter half of the '90s, and you can see that new out-of-care options are working.

New approaches are driven by best practices developed from research and community feedback. These best practices, in turn, are driven by many of the over 4,000 dedicated staff in this ministry. I toured the province recently and met with many of our front-line staff, who provided me with some very candid feedback. They are the unsung heroes: men and women whose day-to-day decisions are so important to the integrity of many families and the safety of many children.

Today public scrutiny of this ministry is unprecedented. It's healthy, because it keeps us learning and striving to do better. However, I don't want to see that public scrutiny paralyzing anyone on the front line or inhibiting them from building on the many successes we've seen as a ministry. It's ministry staff who, using these new tools, kept 1,500 more children safe in their own families and communities. It's ministry staff who helped families responding to our adoption awareness building efforts so that the number of adoptions each year has doubled in B.C. It's ministry staff who support our work with aboriginal leaders and organizations to safeguard children within their communities.

All this work is in keeping with the five great goals. We want the best outcomes for children — and that means, wherever possible, ensuring that they're secure in loving families and aware of their roots, culture and who they are. By increasing our budget for family supports and out-of-care options, we will continue to keep more children safe within their families and communities.

We will also reduce the disproportionate and unacceptable number of aboriginal children in ministry care. The drive to empower aboriginal agencies to meet the needs of their children and families will continue. Today we have 23 delegated agencies. Building the capacity of aboriginal agencies to meet their community needs will lead to better services, better care options and better outcomes for aboriginal children and their families. Budget 2005 continues to support this important work.

I'd like to talk about some other ways we're building the best system of support for children at risk. Budget 2005 furthers our commitment to the innovative child and youth mental health plan our government introduced in 2003. Our budget for child and youth mental health will increase by $12.7 million in '05-06. It will increase by an additional $14.3 million in '07-08, to $66 million — a 63 percent increase since '01-02. This funding will contribute to reduced gaps between need and capacity to support the four basic strategies of our plan: reducing risk, building capacity, improving treatment and support, and improving performance and accountability.

This year we will create more than 100 full-time positions for mental health clinicians and greatly enhance contracted services. The lion's share of new funding will support core services like early identification and intervention, clinical consultation, assessment and treatment, and crisis intervention.

Notably over the next three years, approximately $10 million in new funding will be dedicated to the development of new aboriginal child and youth mental health services. Media and academic reports have documented how susceptible and in need of these services the aboriginal population is. Funding for planning purposes, including dedicated regional aboriginal planners, has been provided to the regional aboriginal planning committees.

Budget 2005 continues to support our priorities as a ministry and as a government. Our great goals are clear, and the ministry's vote is a great investment in those goals. I'm excited about what's ahead for the Ministry of Children and Family Development, and I'm pleased to answer any questions.

A. Dix: It's my first time in estimates to get up, and it's the first time, in fact, in these eventful times for the ministry — the first time in quite some time — that the ministry has been up in estimates. The minister will know, of course, that the government decided not to have estimates in March and not to answer questions about some of the important questions. I'm very glad that the minister is anxious today.

I wanted to say that it's a real privilege to have been named critic in this area. I think the minister will agree with this. I've had the opportunity to meet with service providers, foster parents, ministry employees, social workers, people involved in the community living sector — and the work that is done in this area is extraordinary. So while in political terms, sometimes the ministry has the reputation of having a difficult task, it's not very difficult at all. All you have to do is what the minister and I do frequently — which is go and meet with groups, meet with people who need these services, people who provide these services — to be inspired.

I think we can agree on this — that this is one of the most, if not the most, important thing the government can do. When you talk about children in care, in particular, I think the government has an extraordinary responsibility in every case, for every child.

I wanted to reflect a little bit, because we haven't had the opportunity. The minister talked about the government's record a little bit. I wanted to talk about the government's record, too — just a little bit, to frame and to introduce the debate.

I was reading today a unique document. It was something called Provincial Update. It was provided by the Leader of the Opposition at the time, who's now the Premier, and it was called "Renewing Services for Children and Families." This document kind of laid out…. It was one of these non-partisan partisan documents that the B.C. Liberals used to distribute in large numbers in opposition. It said a whole bunch of things

about what they were going to do and what their commitments to British Columbians were.

There were lots of criticisms of the previous government in the 1990s in the area of children's services, and the document says, amongst other things, about the Gove inquiry…. It criticized the government for not fully implementing the recommendations of the Gove inquiry and said: "The child, youth and family advocate has routinely voiced similar concerns." Who would have imagined that a Leader of the Opposition and a Premier who said that would have eliminated the children's commissioner, and in fact, eliminated the very office that he quotes in the document — less than two years later? Who would have imagined that?

Who would have imagined the document that said: "Front-line workers need our support both in terms of resources and accountability"? Who would have imagined the series of cuts we have seen in the options front-line workers have to help children? Who would have imagined that?

Who would have imagined in June that the government would have tried to move mental health services under the cover of darkness or something? I don't think even deputy ministers were informed when they did it — moved mental health services for children from the Ministry of Children and Family Development to the Ministry of Health, contrary to the recommendations of Gove. Who would have imagined that?

Who would have imagined, to further quote from the document: "The seven-month seizure of the Draayer's foster children last year has undermined public confidence in apprehension and custody decisions"? Who would have imagined a Leader of the Opposition who raised that case again and again in opposition, and a government, would come into office and pass legislation to stop other foster parents from advocating on behalf of their children? Who would have imagined that?

Who would have imagined they would quote a report that says two-thirds of foster parents believe they are not receiving adequate support from the ministry and would have cut services to foster parents and to foster kids? Who would have imagined that? Who would have imagined a government that talked about prevention services and at-risk kids and early intervention and infant development would have seen a rise in waiting lists for infant development? Who would have imagined that?

Who would have imagined, reading this wonderful document where the government talks about increasing spending on children and families, that the government would have targeted the Ministry of Children and Family Development for a significant cut of 23 percent in February 2002, and is now, three years later, bragging about increases which only partially restore that funding? Who would have imagined all of that?

I think we have a small difference of opinion, and we'll have a chance over the next hours and days to canvass that in greater detail.

I wanted to ask the minister if he'll at least acknowledge what's obvious in the estimates documents, which is that he's spending less money than was spent in 2001 on child and family services.

Hon. S. Hagen: I just want to point out a few things which I think are integral to this debate and discussion, because it's not all about how much money you can spend. It's actually what money you need and, also, how you spend the money.

When this government took office in 2001, the number of children in government care was over 11,000. This was 24 percent above the Canadian average. We asked the question: what is unique about British Columbia that our rate would be higher, and that much higher, than the rest of Canada? The answer was simple. We were not following the best practice and research in child welfare.

We needed to focus on alternatives to taking children into care. We needed to find ways to support vulnerable families through increasing family services. We needed to look to extended family to participate in the planning and the care for their family members. That's what we have done, and that's what we'll continue to do. Today we have lowered the number of children in care by 16 percent. We are still 5 percent above the Canadian average, so while we've made progress, I know that we can now move to support more vulnerable families without breaking them apart.

The budget for children and families has been shifted. What we've done in shifting our focus…. We've shifted our focus with budget increases in the following areas. For adoptions — and today is the start of Adoption Month, where we talked about the number of adoptions having doubled since '01 — we were then budgeting $3.3 million. We've increased that to $17.3 million — a 400-percent increase. For out of care and alternatives to care, we've gone from $400,000 to $2.4 million a year — a 450-percent increase. For aboriginal services, from $7.8 million to $18.7 million — a 139-percent increase.

This shift in focus is consistent with the research and trends across North America. It's a shift to increasing supports for families to stay together and looking at alternatives to bringing people into care.

We're showing great success in our approaches. As I said, the number of children in the care of the government has dropped by 16 percent. We've increased the number of children being adopted in this province by 47 percent. It's really a staggering achievement, and the credit goes to those front-line workers. As I travel the province and talk to these front-line workers, they're proud to talk about the work they do in keeping families together instead of going into homes and taking children out.

I want to talk a bit about the kith-and-kin program. Kith and kin now comprises 1 percent of all placements in B.C., but we have room and opportunity to expand this approach as well, because in the rest of Canada, kith-and-kin placements comprise 5 percent of all placements.

But since the minister talked about kith and kin and talked about best practices, we should probably talk about that. I wasn't going to do that for a little while, but he's inspired me, as he does.

When the kith-and-kin program was introduced, was it envisioned that training would be provided to social workers? Part of the reason why it took quite a long time for kith and kin to be introduced was there are a number of options for social workers. Kith and kin is one of those options that has a lot of appeal to the minister because even though children are in need of protection, they don't count in his statistics. He can get up in the House here and brag about reducing the number of children in care, but he implemented — he was part of the cabinet that implemented — the program in June of 2002.

He'll, of course, have all the answers to these questions because I sent them out publicly some weeks ago, so he'll be ready to go on these questions. Can the minister tell us: when that policy was brought to cabinet for approval, what was the implementation plan for the kith-and-kin program in June of 2002?

Hon. S. Hagen: That was a policy change in the ministry and did not come to cabinet.

A. Dix: It was a policy change. So section 8 wasn't proclaimed in June 2002?

A. Dix: When a very significant change like that — a whole new way of treating children in care, vulnerable children — is brought in, and it's based on a legislative change, and that comes to cabinet, surely, somebody in that cabinet room expected, and the ministry would have provided, an implementation plan. That was the requirement for going ahead with kith and kin. There would have been a plan. There would have been a discussion. There would have been a communications plan. There would have been an implementation plan for implementing kith and kin. So can the minister tell us about it? Surely, he's not suggesting that they created a new way to deal with children in care in British Columbia with no implementation plan?

Hon. S. Hagen: The proclamation of that section gave permission to the ministry to implement kith and kin. It was not accompanied, to my knowledge, with any sort of plan.

Let me remind the member of the number of children that are affected by kith and kin. We have approximately 9,050 children in care of the ministry. At the present time we have about 120 children under kith and kin.

A. Dix: Since the minister is talking about numbers, how many children have been in kith-and-kin agreements?

Let's take a step back. Does the ministry actively track the results of that program? How many children have been in kith-and-kin agreements since the program was launched? What is the rate in which they return or they are returned to the province in care? Has the minister or the ministry a new program which, very soon after it started, was steeped in controversy? Has the ministry audited that program, and will he be able to provide a copy of that audit to the House?

Hon. S. Hagen: I am advised that there have been a total of about 800 kith-and-kin agreements since it started, but some of these have been renewed. I don't have an answer for the number that have been renewed, so they're included in that 800. I'm also advised that because the program is a relatively new program, there have not been any audits done. The success rate is about 78 percent.

A. Dix: Let's return to the plan, assuming there was one. I'm guessing there was one. The minister suggests that even though they were proclaiming a new section of the act, the Ministry of Children and Family Development didn't bother to give the cabinet any information about it before they proclaimed it — something which perhaps is a new way of doing business, but I doubt that's the case. Can the minister tell me about his ministry's implementation plan for kith-and-kin agreements in June 2002?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm told there was a comprehensive training plan which included training for social workers.

A. Dix: Well, of course, it's perplexing to hear the news that there was a comprehensive plan because, of course, there was no evidence of that in fact. Can the minister tell the House why kith-and-kin agreements were approved to go forward? Why were they started without any training for social workers? It is an extraordinary fact.

We're talking about a new program dealing with the most vulnerable people in society, and the government — which was, by the way, in the midst of chaos in this ministry caused by budget cuts in that government, absolute chaos in that ministry…. They were doing a massive reorganization. They had had a 23-percent cut — not my numbers. The Minister of Finance of the day's numbers and that ministry at the time. Can the minister explain how it could be that you could launch a new program without training a single social worker?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm told that the training of the social workers didn't start until the fall of 2002.

A. Dix: Can the minister explain, simply, why they didn't wait until they trained social workers before they implemented the program?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm told that the workers in the field wanted to embrace this new process and were very anxious to get it into being, and apparently that's why, although it was put into practice in June, it took until the fall to actually train the social workers.

A. Dix: So let me get this straight, with the minister's explanation…. Well, let me ask him: does he think that was a mistake?

Hon. S. Hagen: I would remind the member that a qualified social worker already has lots of training before he or she even gets hired by the ministry. So in putting something new into practice, it's easy to criticize. Having said that, as I say, the front-line workers were very excited about having this new tool in their hands to keep families together, to keep children in the families or in the homes of relatives.

A. Dix: I think it's extraordinary to hear the minister not acknowledge that the implementation of a new program without training, a significant new way of treating children in care and a menu of other programs at a time when, by the way, other agreements…. We'll get to it in a minute. They implemented section 54.1 agreements at the time.

I think we'll just do a little bit of compare-and-contrast in a few minutes about the serious documents that were put forward to implement one program that had to do with a new type of guardianship on the one hand and the shoddy, second-rate, embarrassing way in which this program was implemented by the minister and the ministry.

I want to turn to the document that the minister will have with him. It's called Practice Guidelines for Section 8 Agreements, Aboriginal Agencies. My first question to the minister since, in fact…. This is something I've been explaining to journalists frequently, and I know the minister has as well. Kith-and-kin agreements are not strictly designed for aboriginal people. In fact, all children could access such a program, if it was desired. Why was this program implemented in July 2002 only for aboriginal agencies?

Hon. S. Hagen: You're incorrect in your statement. It was not just implemented for aboriginal children; it was instituted for all children.

A. Dix: Well, the program was implemented by the faxing out of draft guidelines. I want to explore these. These draft guidelines were not sent to all social workers. They were just sent…. I'll read the title, just so the minister understands this, and I'm sure his staff can explain this to him as well. They are entitled Practice Guidelines for Section 8 Agreements, Aboriginal Agencies.

I'm fascinated by the minister's description of policy development in his ministry. They do a poll out in the field, and they implement programs in advance of being ready to do so because some people might be enthusiastic about them. That's an interesting way of doing business, especially when there's so much at stake.

In this case they implemented the program by faxing out draft guidelines, filled with mistakes, just to aboriginal agencies. This document just went to aboriginal agencies. It wouldn't have gone anywhere else. It says "aboriginal agencies" on it.

What it says about this program…. I wanted to ask the minister what advice the ministry gave to the minister, what position the ministry took, on the fact that kith-and-kin agreements were to be implemented without home studies and without ongoing monitoring.

Hon. S. Hagen: I hate to tell the member again that he's wrong, but, in fact, he is. The member is looking at a secondary document. The original document went out to all regional offices, and on top of that, senior staff toured all of the regional offices to meet with staff of the regional offices to explain to them how this would work.

As I said before, kith and kin is not, and was not, designed just for aboriginal children. It was designed for all children.

A. Dix: Well, maybe I'll give the minister another chance to answer the question then. They designed this program presumably because it would have the ancillary benefit of improving the ministry's statistics. They decided to approve homes without home studies and instructed social workers not to conduct ongoing monitoring.

Can the minister table in this House the advice that led to that decision being made? Does he agree that that's the appropriate response? Does he agree, in fact, that it is better not to do a home study, not to do a review of a home prior to entering into a kith-and-kin agreement as the minister would if you had to enter into a restricted foster parent agreement?

Hon. S. Hagen: I am told that the original guidelines, when they came out with the announcement, said that a social worker may review the home. But when the guidelines came out in the fall, that was changed to must.

A. Dix: Well, I appreciate the minister anticipating further questions, but that again isn't the question I asked. Why not do a home study by a resource social worker before entering into a kith-and-kin agreement, as you would in the case of a restricted foster parent agreement?

Hon. S. Hagen: Because this is not a foster arrangement. This is an arrangement where a child can be placed — usually on a temporary basis, usually at the request of the family — into a home for a temporary period of time. The social worker then works with the family that the child has come from so that, hopefully, the child can go back to that family.

A. Dix: Does the minister agree with the report signed off on by the director of child protection? I understand he's had an unfortunate accident. I want to wish him well tonight; he's not here.

The report into the case in Port Alberni, which the minister knows and I know, concludes, referring to the kith-and-kin program: "It was introduced in 2002 as an element of MCFD's new strategic shift, placing more onus on communities to care for children, to reduce the number of children in foster care by a specific percentage and, in the opinion of the review, to reduce costs."

Hon. S. Hagen: As I mentioned a short while ago, the situation we in B.C. were in was that the number of children in government care was over 11,000, which was 24 percent above the Canadian average. So then we asked ourselves a question: what is unique about B.C. that our rate would be that much higher than the rest of Canada? One of the ways that we found to try and reduce that was kith and kin.

A. Dix: Well, with respect to these agreements — and just to quote from the document that the ministry faxed out after its detailed implementation plan was being implemented in the summer of 2002 — it says: "You should conduct a prior contact check. You should conduct a criminal records check. You should obtain two letters of reference from relatives. Note: a formal assessment of the care providers will not be conducted."

It's a public policy question for the minister. Why is it the case that the minister decided not to do home studies in these cases? These children — I think the minister will agree; I'm not suggesting that he doesn't think this — who obviously have protection issues to enter into this program, require, I think, the same level of care as any other child.

So I ask him: why not a home study? And why did the ministry instruct social workers…? These are both cost-saving measures, by the way, minister. That's what the report of the ministry in the Port Alberni case states — that this is a cost-saving measure. Why did the ministry not have ongoing monitoring, and why did it not have home studies by resource social workers prior to entering into a kith-and-kin agreement?

Hon. S. Hagen: I would like to remind the member opposite that social workers are professionals. I think he understands that. Social workers are professionals. They actually know how to do their job. I have full confidence in social workers.

With regard to the comment about the cost-saving — and I'm not going to speak specifically about the case that he mentioned — in the case of where children are on reserve, it's not a cost-saving measure because the federal government will not pay for kith and kin. We pay for it out of our budget, so it actually costs more money than it would if we were putting them into a foster arrangement.

A. Dix: Can the minister answer the question very simply: why not do home studies in a kith-and-kin agreement?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm told by staff that we actually do a form of home study for kith and kin.

A. Dix: The minister is saying, as I understand it, that the document he faxed out just to aboriginal agencies is wrong when it says you shouldn't do a home study. That's what the document says. That's what they faxed out to agencies. That's what happened in the case that he and I have been discussing over the last couple of months. He's saying that in fact there are home studies and that this document they sent out that implemented his policy was wrong. Is that what he's suggesting to this House?

Hon. S. Hagen: I think I'm reading the same document that the member opposite has. "The formal assessment of the care providers will not be conducted." Then it goes on to say: "The pre-agreement checks are intended to ensure that there are no known child protection concerns or issues with the care providers."

A. Dix: The minister referred to the work of social workers. The minister referred to that work and to the valued work that resource social workers do, and I think he'll acknowledge they do extraordinary work.

In the case of these agreements, they don't do any work, in fact, because they are not assigned to do home studies. A home study by a resource social worker — the minister will know this, and his staff will know this — involves more than a prior contact check, which wasn't completed, as he knows, in the case in Port Alberni, and an inaccurate one was done. He knows that it's more than doing a criminal records check, which he knows in that case wasn't done. He knows that it's more than getting two letters of reference from relatives.

He knows all these things. So to suggest that that statement, that those pre-agreement checks are sufficient or are the same as having a home study by a resource social worker is, well, impossibly disrespectful to the work of resource social workers. But that aside, isn't it simply wrong — what he just suggested?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm told again by my staff that you're reading a draft document, which is the same one that I'm looking at, and that starting in the spring of 2003, studies were done on the home to make sure that the home was safe for the child.

A. Dix: We're in 2003 now, but this was more than a draft document, with great respect. It says it's a draft document. It surely reads like a draft document, but it was the document in place in Port Alberni in August of

2002. It was the policy that was being implemented at that time, so it has enormous significance.

I want to ask the minister about another issue related to this document, which is the criminal records check acceptance criteria. I just want to reflect on this because we've had this discussion, and I've heard the answer, the extraordinary answer — the ministry staff — with respect to the failing in this matter. They faxed out a document. The Ministry of Children and Family Development responsible for children in care implemented a new program to do with children requiring protection, and they implemented that program by faxing out this document. That's how they implemented that program in Port Alberni, amongst other places.

They had a schedule of offences on that, and they tried — they did their best — to copy the Criminal Records Review Act offences. Let me read to the minister the offences they left off: killing unborn child in act of birth, attempt to commit murder, accessory after the fact of murder, neglect to obtain assistance in childbirth, concealing body of child, causing bodily harm with intent, administering nauseous thing, overcoming resistance to commission of offence, criminal harassment, uttering threats. Here's an important one: assault, assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm, unlawfully causing bodily harm, sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, aggravated sexual assault, removal of child from Canada, kidnapping, forcible confinement, hostage-taking, abduction of persons under 16, abduction of person under 14, abduction in contravention of custody order, abduction, false messages, indecent telephone calls, trafficking in controlled drug, trafficking in restricted drug — left off the list of offences. This document was implementing a new program for children in care, a new program for children requiring protection.

Will the minister acknowledge what his ministry failed to acknowledge in August — that leaving these criminal offences off was a mistake?

Hon. S. Hagen: What I will acknowledge is that the policy has been changed. Apparently, this topic was covered extensively in the '03 and '04 estimates. We're now in the '05-06 estimates, and I would encourage the member to move into the present. Policies have been changed to correct that.

A. Dix: Well, of course, I say it continues to be extraordinary that the minister and the ministry will not acknowledge that this is negligence. This is public policy negligence to implement a program in this way. Why are we debating these matters now? Because the minister's office, the ministry, kept these things from the public. The reason we couldn't debate these in the estimates of '03 or '04 — in fact, we couldn't debate them when the report came out; the original summary report came in July '05 and August '05 — is because I contacted the director of the child protection office. I contacted the minister's office, and they refused to provide us with this document — covered it up.

So if the minister would reflect on this, this is the implementation of a new program, an important new program for children in care. They left off 29 serious criminal offences. I just want to quote what his staff said because the minister was away when we got a copy of this document. Fortunately, people hold on to these things from time to time. We get a copy of it even though the minister refused to provide one to me. The deputy minister's office and the ministry refused to provide the document to us. In fact, the ministry responded when we released this document and talked about it a little bit. And what did the ministry say? They said that it was never expected to be a comprehensive list. Is that true?

Hon. S. Hagen: The new policy refers to the Criminal Records Review Act, which is a more comprehensive document, but it's referred to in our new policy.

A. Dix: This is the first time we've had a chance to canvass this issue in the House. So will the minister acknowledge that the government and the ministry were negligent in sending out this document without a full list of criminal offences?

Hon. S. Hagen: What I will acknowledge is what the member opposite well knows, and that is that we have several investigations underway with regard to the Port Alberni incident and with regard to our policies in general, because I want to know the answers. I want to be assured that the process we have in place is the best that it can possibly be, that we do in fact have the policies in place to keep children safe and that we know if there are any details that we have not yet found out about the incident in Port Alberni.

A. Dix: I'll ask the question one more time. In life we all make mistakes. I think it's important to acknowledge them.

In the case of the 29 criminal offences…. The ministry spokesperson, when we released the guidelines — these shoddy, inadequate, negligent guidelines that were sent out…. When we released them, the ministry spokesperson, acting director of child protection, said the list of offences included in the document wasn't intended to be exhaustive. Rather, it highlighted offences specifically targeting children, he said. The list included child pornography, indecent acts and sexual interference. Will the minister acknowledge that that is not correct, that in fact it has more of an error than a copy and paste error? The explanation that was provided by Mr. Sieben is not correct. In fact, the majority of offences of which children are victim were left off the list, not put on the list.

Hon. S. Hagen: What I will acknowledge is that we have several reviews underway with regard to the practices of the ministry. We will make sure that the public has confidence in how the ministry does its job and confidence in the ministry. We're looking at the

precise situation in Port Alberni, but we're also looking at the overall policies of the ministry to make sure that what we're doing is the best that we can possibly do and, therefore, that the public will have confidence in the ministry.

A. Dix: Am I to understand that the minister is refusing to answer questions in this House about this negligence out of a claim that they are involved in some sort of review?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm pleased to repeat again that this is precisely why I've asked for the review to be done, for the panel to review the overall situation of the ministry and for the review of the particular case in Port Alberni.

A. Dix: As the minister knows, I sent 50 questions to the child and youth officer for British Columbia and 50 questions to the coroner. They both gave me the same answers with respect to some of the questions I've asked and some of the questions I'm going to ask in this case. I'll quote the child and youth officer referring to the questions: "Many of them will be appropriately asked of the government by you or other MLAs in question period." Here we are. It's question period.

So I want to ask the minister again, since clearly that question isn't intended to be the subject of Ms. Morley's review, isn't going to be a subject of the coroner's review, isn't going to be a subject of the Gove review, isn't going to be the subject of the other reviews…. Will the minister answer the question? Was his ministry negligent in leaving off that list 29 serious criminal offences in implementing a new program for children?

Hon. S. Hagen: Well, obviously, the member opposite is much more knowledgable than I am about who's going to ask what questions, because I'm not aware of what questions they're going to investigate or what they're going to ask. Maybe he knows something that I don't know. I know he's involved, actually, in one of the reviews, but I'm not sure he should take that information and use it in this House, because that's being done on a confidential basis.

However, I will again say that I'm prepared to wait until these reviews are complete to see the result of these reviews and what recommendations, if any, come out of those reviews. Then we'll consider them as government and act on those that we want to.

A. Dix: Well, I'm fascinated about the minister's proclaimed ignorance of these reviews, particularly the confidential review to which he refers. Of course, he said outside this House: "My staff wrote the terms of reference." Now, this is an extraordinary thing, and these aren't the estimates of the child and youth officer. They will be happening next door soon. It will be interesting to get the answers over there.

But here's what the minister said — and you'll recall the reason I think that they put the child and youth officer under the Attorney General was to be independent from the minister: "My staff wrote the terms of reference. We talked about them to see what questions had been asked and what seemed to be troubling people and came up with a consensus." A question from a journalist: "If it's not appropriate for you to know the terms of reference of the director's review, why is it appropriate for you to set the terms of reference for the child and youth officer?" Minister: "Because, as the minister, I get to do this."

Hon. Speaker, he knows the terms of reference of the review, because he wrote them. Does he think, since he raised this issue of the review, that it's appropriate that a review into the conduct of his ministry was written and directed…? The minister himself, by the way, in the same scrum outside, drew conclusions about what the review would find. Does he think it's appropriate that he's writing the terms of reference for a review of the conduct of his ministry and his office?

Hon. S. Hagen: Those suggestions were given to the Attorney General, and then they were added to, as you know, by the child and youth officer, who wanted to make sure that the review was as complete as it could be.

A. Dix: When I read in English the minister's statement that he wrote the review terms of reference because, as the minister, "I get to do this" — that, in fact, wasn't true?

Hon. S. Hagen: Yes, I get to do that, but I also get to pass it on to the Attorney General whose job it is to ask the child and youth officer to do the review.

A. Dix: Well, as we know in this case, the Attorney General's role was more of mailman for the review than anything else.

But that aside, I think it's extraordinary and unfortunate that the government — desperate trouble — doesn't know what to do, starts giving instructions to the child and youth officer. Indeed, it did more in three days to undermine the independence of the child and youth officer than anyone could have imagined doing in years of debate in this Legislature — he and the Attorney General together.

I want to return to these important questions because they're fundamentally important, I think, to these programs. I want to ask him about the issue of home study because as he knows, referring to CFS Standard 8 informal kinship care, there's still no home study. There's no home study by resource social worker in kinship programs to this day. Why not?

Hon. S. Hagen: I would suggest that the member opposite is playing with words. He's using the words that we use to describe the home study for foster chil-

dren. I've already answered the question about the home study that's done with regard to kith and kin.

A. Dix: Does the minister agree that the home study conducted by resource social workers for, say, a restricted foster parent is different than the paperwork study done under a kith-and-kin agreement?

Hon. S. Hagen: There's a difference between a child coming in under foster care and a child coming in under a kith-and-kin arrangement. Under foster care, he's under the director — the director's responsibility. Under kith and kin, it's a family-to-family responsibility.

A. Dix: Well, I didn't realize that sophistry was the official policy of the Ministry of Children and Family Development. I mean, so what? The question I had for him is this: why aren't there home studies for kith-and-kin agreements? Aren't children involved in kith-and-kin agreements worthy of protection?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm told that since 2003, which I mentioned before, there are studies of the home done for kith and kin. They're not the same as the home studies that are done for foster parents. I've said that.

A. Dix: Does the minister believe that a lower standard of home study is the right public policy?

Hon. S. Hagen: To the member: it's not a lower standard. It's a process that's used to reflect the difference between a foster arrangement and a kith-and-kin arrangement.

A. Dix: Well, with great respect, it is a lower standard. There's less work involved. There's less cost involved. There's less investment by the ministry involved. So what the minister and what the ministry are saying is that we can accept a higher level of risk in these cases.

I have to tell the minister that I find that disappointing and extraordinary. I don't believe that kinship agreements should not be allowed, but I believe there should be the same level of home study, the same level of assistance from social workers, the same ability to access programs for children going into this program as there should be for children going into a restricted foster parent agreement. Does the minister agree with that?

Hon. S. Hagen: No, I don't. I think that our policy that's in place now is the correct policy.

A. Dix: In other words, the minister has created a class of children whom he doesn't have to count as children in care, so they help his statistics. Oh, how important their statistics are. They have less access to government programs, less access to support from social workers, fewer home studies, and he thinks that's an acceptable arrangement.

I've got to tell you…. I think the evidence of this case shows it dramatically, and if the minister has read — as I presume he has — the report on this case, he will draw the same conclusions. I disagree with that approach. I think it's the wrong approach, and I'd ask the minister two questions. Is he planning at any point to do a review of this program? Considering the extraordinary failure in its launch, is he planning to do a review of this program? When? And if he hasn't, why hasn't he?

In other words, here we have a government program — let's just say to the members of the House — where they cut standards, where they cut the standards of reviewing homes, where they cut the standard of support for the child in the home. They implement this program. It has cost savings for the government, and then three years later they don't even review the consequences of their decisions. I ask the minister very simply: is he planning to do a review of section 8 agreements?

Hon. S. Hagen: The objective of our social workers is actually to keep kids in families, to keep kids in their homes. Now, if kids have to be removed, there's the option of foster parents. There's the option of kith-and-kin. Kith-and-kin is usually for a shorter time. It's usually with a family. It's usually at the request of the parents who know they need some help. I think the policy that's in place is the correct one.

A. Dix: Well, let's talk about a real story, then. Because if we're talking about the case in Port Alberni…. Had the government not decided hastily — apparently after a popularity contest in June — about going ahead with the program without anybody being ready, without anybody being trained, which is what the minister said they did…. They decided to go ahead with this program without any training for social workers, because apparently some people were enthusiastic about it. They decided to go ahead before they were ready. If, in the case of the child in that case, we would have had to go through a restricted foster parent agreement in that home, wouldn't there have been a home study by a resource social worker?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm wondering: when the member opposite uses the terminology that there was no training for social workers, is he suggesting that after a degree in social work, a staff worker has no training? I don't get that. In answer to your second question, I will not be discussing the case in Port Alberni.

A. Dix: We have an extraordinary situation here. I'll talk about the case in Port Alberni for a moment. We'll be asking some questions about it, because questions need to be asked. We have the minister having reviews. We send questions to reviews. They tell us to ask the minister. The minister says he won't answer. This is the ambience, the atmosphere, of cover-up that I'm talking about. You can't get the answer here, but he won't an-

swer here because they're not answering over there. That's the approach he's taking. It's an extraordinary approach.

I'll read him what the child and youth officer said. He can perhaps — I don't know — give her a call. I don't know if they talk. What the child and youth officer said, referring to the question I just asked and others, is that many of them — referring to those questions — will be appropriately asked of the government by you or other MLAs in question period.

Does the minister believe that civil cases and reviews take away his responsibility to answer questions as a member of the government?

Hon. S. Hagen: I've already said that I will not be answering any questions with regard to the specifics of the case in Port Alberni. There are several reviews going on, plus there are two court cases. Therefore, the member opposite is going to have to wait until the reviews are done or the court cases are complete.

A. Dix: Let me ask the minister to at least clarify his previous comments, then, because he referred to that case. He blamed…. September 19, question period. First he said: "I was not the minister at that time and am not aware of it." He then went on to say: "I can say categorically in this House that this ministry is more open and transparent than any other ministry of its kind in Canada and probably the United States and Europe as well." He then went on to say: "I have said on the record that a mistake was made by one of our social workers." He then went on to say: "This occurred because of a tragic error made by one of our employees." He then went on to say on September 20: "It was a case of not sending a piece of paper. It was a case of a 49-cent stamp. Having said that, I have never directed blame on this case to an individual social worker."

Can the minister explain, not all the answers about the case if he doesn't want to, but what he meant — given the extraordinary mistakes made by his ministry in implementing this program, the extraordinary and multiple mistakes made in this case — by: "It was a case of not sending a piece of paper. It was a case of a 49-cent stamp"?

Hon. S. Hagen: Because this case is before the courts, I'm not going to comment on those questions.

A. Dix: I have another question for the minister. I want to ask the minister, with respect to kith-and-kin agreements, whether the ministry or the government obtained a legal opinion or policy analysis concerning ministry liability and the liability of ministry social workers.

A. Dix: The Minister of Forests speaks. It's wonderful news. Perhaps the Minister of Forests will answer some questions. Perhaps somebody will answer some questions.

Did the government obtain a legal opinion or policy analysis concerning ministry liability and the liability of ministry social workers under the new kith-and-kin agreements?

Hon. S. Hagen: If I could just make a suggestion to the member opposite. Maybe we should get on to the estimates for this fiscal year.

Hon. S. Hagen: I was going to suggest to the member that maybe he should get on with the estimates for this fiscal year.

A. Dix: I say to the minister, since, as he knows…. Much of this information was kept secret because of delays by the government and everything else. We're bringing this information, as they say, to the House at our first opportunity. So I'm asking him; it's a reasonable question. There are kith-and-kin agreements now. The minister described more than 800 of them. I'm asking if the government had policy analysis or legal opinions concerning ministry liability and the liability of ministry social workers under kith-and-kin agreements. How is that not a question that's appropriate for estimates?

Hon. S. Hagen: Might I suggest again to the member opposite that we move into the estimates for this fiscal year.

A. Dix: Well, let's ask more questions of the minister that perhaps he isn't capable of answering. I want to ask the minister: is there any policy analysis…? Can he present a legal opinion or policy analysis concerning the potential for coercion of parents under kith-and-kin agreements? Is this a subject that concerns him? Is it a subject of which any policy analysis has been done in his ministry? There are presumably more than 800 of these agreements in his ministry, including, he says, more than 100 active agreements. Surely this is a question that he might be capable of answering.

Hon. S. Hagen: I've just been informed that section 8, which is one of the things we're talking about, was actually passed by the NDP government in 1996. I don't know whether they had any problems with it — just that it wasn't implemented until we became government.

A. Dix: I readily acknowledge that section 8 was passed in 1996. I think it's pretty self-evident to the minister…. I'm sure ministry officials who have been around for a long time will tell him this. It's pretty self-evident that there were issues around the implementation of the program when you pass a law and don't proclaim it for six years. Obviously, there were issues. That's what happened.

His ministry brought this program into force in 2002 in the midst of ministry reorganization, ministry chaos and cuts. He brought it into effect. I'll ask the minister again: has the government obtained a legal opinion or policy analysis concerning the potential for coercion of parents under kith-and-kin agreements?

Hon. S. Hagen: We actually trust our social workers to make the best decision with regard to children, whether it's going into a foster family or whether it's under a kith-and-kin arrangement.

A. Dix: I want to ask the minister about the report of the child and youth officer. I think one of the issues is this whole statistical argument that the minister makes that seems to drive ministry policy, which is that if we find new ways to define where children are, we can claim there are fewer children in care.

Is he not disturbed…? He said he went around and met with front-line workers. Is he not concerned with the conclusion of the child and youth officer that front-line workers feel pressured? And since we're talking about kith and kin — but there are a whole bunch of other agreements we'll be able to talk about and types of care we can talk about over the next little while — is he not concerned that this report by his child and youth officer, the one he writes terms of reference for, says that social workers feel pressured not to take children into care?

Hon. S. Hagen: What I see developing here is a critic who is still thinking back in the '90s, versus a ministry that is thinking in this century with regard to best practices. Having said that, though, social workers in my ministry work hard at keeping children in families. That's why the number of children in care is reducing. That's why the cost of keeping these children is reducing.

Now, they have many things that they can do. They can put the children in a foster arrangement. They can put them in a kith-and-kin arrangement. They have choices. You know, my social workers are trained, actually, to do this. They're trained to make those choices.

Could every person be a social worker? No. I couldn't be a social worker, but we have people who want to be social workers. When I ask social workers…. As I go around the province and meet them, I ask them why they do the job they do. Do you know what their answer is? "Because we like to help people" — that's what their answer is.

A. Dix: Well, this is a report. It's by the child and youth officer. It refers to his ministry. It's talking to the very social workers that the minister just praised and that I praised as well.

That report — and it was a pretty comprehensive survey of caregivers — says: "Their morale has been undermined by the fact that the ministry and the minister and the Premier have been engaged in a budget-cutting effort for years." It says: "Caregivers in the B.C. system believe they're under pressure to get children out of care regardless of whether that is good for the child or not." What is the minister's reaction when a comprehensive survey of agencies and of his employees draws such an extraordinary conclusion?

Hon. S. Hagen: Now, I know that the member opposite has actually worked in government. I'm sure that when he worked in government, if he went out and talked to civil servants in various ministries, he would get a variety of views about how they felt about issues in the ministry they were working in.

We have a variety of views from the workers in our ministry as well. We have over 4,000 people working in our ministry. Granted, the child and youth officer has prepared a report, which I have read very carefully. We will take things from that report, and if there are changes that need to be made, we will make them.

We won't always agree with her views. She is independent, and I respect that. She's doing her job, and she's talking to people. I also talk to people. My staff also talk to people. I'm sure that you talk to people. You and I might even have the same view on some of these things after talking to people. On the other hand, we might disagree.

A. Dix: Well, let me then quote from the report, because the minister seems to be suggesting — and I may be mischaracterizing his remarks; I'm sure he'll correct me if I am — that this is kind of typical whining by public servants. Let me read him the report. It's exactly on point with the issues we've been talking about — the pressure social workers feel to use the least disruptive measures even when they may not be appropriate:

They're not talking about the 1990s, minister. They're talking about right now. Let me repeat that for you:

Lower budget quotas. We didn't hear about that in the minister's opening statement.

Hon. S. Hagen: Madam Chair, I just want to be clear so that he understands this. The safety and well-being of children is the number-one priority of our ministry and the people who work in it. Let me add,

too, that the child and youth officer does a very, very important job. I certainly value her opinions, and I value her input into improvements that we can make in the ministry. I value the fact that she's going out and talking to front-line workers who do such an incredible job.

Having said that, I want to repeat that the numbers in care in the ministry have been reduced over the last four years by 16 percent. We went from about 11,000 down to about 9,050. At the time when we became government in 2001, we were 24 percent above the Canadian average. Now, surely the members opposite, if they had been the government then, would ask themselves the question: "Why are we 24 percent above the Canadian average with regard to the number of children in care?" I would ask that question. We may not come up with the same answers, but I would certainly ask the question.

The answer is that we weren't following the best practices. The answer is that social workers were actually going in and taking kids out of families when maybe they didn't have to. The answer is that now our social workers try everything to keep families together. As I travel around the province visiting with social workers, the stories that I love to hear them tell me are the stories where they've been successful in a situation where maybe four years ago they would have taken the child out. Now they've been successful in working with the parents, working with counsellors, to actually keep the children in that family. I think that's a big plus. It's a big plus for those kids, for the families and for all of us.

A. Dix: Apparently, every question has the same answer. Let me ask him again. I'll ask him a question, very simply, about the child and youth officer's report asking questions. What steps are being taken to address this report?

Hon. S. Hagen: As with any of her reports, we consider her reports. Staff will look and certainly talk with her to see whether something should change. If a change is required, then that change will be made.

A. Dix: I want to continue just briefly on kith-and-kin questions. It's not a question about the specifics of the case. I've got lots of questions about that, about the case in Port Alberni, and I may ask them. We'll see how that goes.

I want to ask the minister about decisions about the information that was released by his ministry in July with respect to this case. As he knows, because he was involved in a very delicately organized press conference in July, along with the director, he released at that time an information bulletin. I just want to ask a simple question to the minister in that case. It's not about the details of the case; it's about the spin. Why did the information bulletin that accompanied the summary report in that case, Mr. Berland's summary of the report, make no reference — not a single reference in an information bulletin — to the role of the ministry and put all the blame on the aboriginal agency?

Hon. S. Hagen: I think the information bulletin that the member is referring to certainly was not fixing blame on anything. It was laying out the steps that happened. What came out of this review, as we both know, is a list of 12 recommendations, most of which have been implemented.

A. Dix: Well, I mean, the information bulletin, so called. He's quite right. The only accurate thing about it, I guess, is that it was a bulletin. In fact, it only referred to the aboriginal agency and didn't refer to the serious mistakes of the ministry, which seems extraordinary in a document produced by the Ministry of Children and Family Development, considering that the minister concludes — his conclusion, not mine, about the review and him asking questions about the review — that it was the case of a 49-cent stamp.

I want to ask the minister whether he thinks it's appropriate that the information bulletin his ministry prepared didn't refer at all to the role of his ministry in the case. Further, can I ask him who was involved in the development of the communications strategy around that information bulletin?

Hon. S. Hagen: This summary that the member speaks about was designed to lay out the facts — I guess those people who had the closest association. I'm not going any closer than that. It was certainly not designed to fix any blame.

A. Dix: Can I ask the minister who was involved in the decision to release an edited version of the full report?

Hon. S. Hagen: The intention was to provide something so that people could try and understand what had happened, because when you read the severed report, it's very difficult to actually understand what transpired.

A. Dix: Why were the flawed guidelines that we've already discussed — a key part of the story, with absolutely no privacy considerations or implications — not included as part of an appendix to the report?

Hon. S. Hagen: The intention, as I say, was to provide a brief summary of the review that was readable.

A. Dix: Between the release of the summary report, which, I think it's fair to say, once one reads the real report — even with sections blanked out — is a significant mischaracterization of that report…. I remind the minister that it was the only report he intended to release on the question.

I wanted to ask him who was involved in the decision to eventually release an edited version of the full report — which was my question. I wanted to ask him

why the flawed guidelines weren't included as an appendix to the full report, how the child and youth officer became involved in the process as a guarantor of full disclosure and why the guidelines were not given to the child and youth officer.

Hon. S. Hagen: I think that it's time to remind the member that this case is under review and that the process is under review. I'm prepared to wait for that review to take place, and I would like to suggest that we start on the estimates.

A. Dix: Well, clearly, I don't get to give the answers around here, and the minister doesn't get to ask the questions. These questions are exactly relevant to his ministry's activities. They're exactly envisioned in the estimates. The fact that the government intentionally escaped facing the Legislature on these actions in March notwithstanding, we get to ask questions about the activities of the ministry, and these are, I think, relevant questions.

The ministry spent significant funds on these. They have an expansive communications branch, all made up of political appointees. I think it's reasonable to ask questions about the minister's communications activities with respect to these cases. I just wanted to ask him, very simply…. This doesn't have to do with the details of the case. Again, I can ask questions about that, and I might.

I asked the minister, very simply, why the flawed guidelines were not given to the child and youth officer, who served as the government's guarantor of the report's completeness. Why didn't the minister ensure that the child and youth officer was given the information she needed to draw the conclusions she had to draw?

Hon. S. Hagen: There is a review of this case ongoing, and I'm happy to wait for that review to be complete. I suggest we move on to the estimates.

A. Dix: I just wanted to quote to the minister, because we're talking about children in care…. The minister was the one who got up at the beginning of these estimates and talked about reducing the number of children in care through various means and various measures. The minister has referred to those statistics, like, 700 times — and we've only been going for a couple of hours.

I want to ask the minister about these issues, which include kith-and-kin agreements, because they're significant issues for the children of British Columbia and the people of British Columbia. I want to ask him just generally…. He might be more comfortable with these general questions, because he seems awfully uncomfortable with specific questions.

The government says, and I'm quoting from Cindy Morton, who was the independent children's commissioner — supported in that task by the then Leader of the Opposition, now the Premier — a distinguished British Columbian, I think we can all agree. She says: "Government says it's doing a good job because there are fewer children in care. This is a specious argument, worse than a red herring, because it saves the government money, and it can be leaving kids in unsafe situations."

Clearly, that was the case in Port Alberni. I'd ask the minister to comment and if he agrees with Cindy Morton's remarks.

Hon. S. Hagen: To the member: because he tied the question into the case in Port Alberni, I'm afraid that I can't comment on it.

A. Dix: Cindy Morton said: "Government says it's doing a good job." It's such a good quote that I feel it's terrific to be able to give it to the minister again:

These are serious remarks from a serious person who has enormous experience in these questions. Does the minister not agree that the number of children in care surely isn't the only consideration? And, further, doesn't he agree that the best solution for each child is an individual decision, not a decision to meet the government's targets?

Does he not agree that it's inappropriate for the government to be setting specific targets for the number of children in care? Shouldn't the decisions of social workers guide the number of children in care and not the budget decisions of the comptrollers in the minister's ministry?

Hon. S. Hagen: We certainly agree that every child is special. Every child is unique. The case of every child should be looked at individually, and that's how the determination should be made, bearing in mind that the safety and well-being of children is always our number one priority. But we don't make any apologies for trying to find ways to help families outside of the adversarial approach favoured by the other side of the House when they were in government. Taking children into care and alienating them is not as good as finding ways to leave them in the family and counselling the family, so the children can stay at home and the family can stay together.

A. Dix: Because I mentioned Cindy Morton, I wanted to move to the minister's comments. Perhaps, because this involves some area of children in British Columbia, he will find some review so as not to an-

swer. But I wanted to ask the minister: when you reflect on the lack of reports of children's deaths, when you reflect on the cutting of the child advocate, when you reflect on the cutting of the independent children's commissioner, when you reflect on a ministry which signed agreements with agencies so that they couldn't criticize the government, when you reflect on a ministry whose declared attitude towards FOI is to resist releasing anything ever, does he really believe — given these actions, which were largely driven by budget considerations — that his ministry is the most open and transparent in the western world?

Hon. S. Hagen: I would love to answer one of those, or each one individually, but certainly I didn't agree that we had threatened any agencies not to criticize government. I'm not aware of that at all.

Certainly, by what we show on our website, the information that we release, we are the most open and transparent ministry of any province in Canada and any jurisdiction in the United States or Europe that my people have tried to find.

A. Dix: I think the minister will agree that it's because we've asked questions in this House about children in care that there are now five reviews of the case that he uses as an excuse not to answer questions about child protection.

I wanted to ask him about one of those reviews, about the review that, notionally anyway, involves Judge Gove. I gather, and perhaps the minister can correct me…. Well, perhaps I'll just ask the minister: when is he expecting to get the results of that review — the one about the process of child death reviews in British Columbia?

Hon. S. Hagen: That process has not been announced yet, and I'm afraid the member will have to wait for that announcement.

A. Dix: Well, it's interesting. I thought I heard the minister say in this House December 31 that Jane Morley, advocate of the status quo; the chief coroner, advocate of the status quo; and Judge Gove would be on the panel. Did he not say those things? And when does he plan to announce or set in motion this panel of review?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm glad that he's so supportive of this initiative, but as I said before, we're not ready to announce this. We will be shortly, and I think that the member opposite will be very, very impressed with the announcement when it's made.

A. Dix: Well, the minister said in this House, and the Premier said in this House, that he expects a report by December 31, 2005. Is that still the case?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm really pleased to hear that he's so focused on this and that he's anxious to support it, but he will have to wait. It is all about future policy and stuff. He will have to wait until we actually make the announcement. I'm not going to make the announcement tonight. I'm going to make the announcement when we're ready to make the announcement, and then all of those things will be clarified.

A. Dix: Well, hon. Chair, you know it's an unusual, bizarro world we're living in here with the minister, because we were all here when he made the announcement. We were all here. I mean, most of us were here. The place was full. It was question period. The Premier was under pressure, and he said: "There's going to be a commission. It's going to report by December 31, 2005."

Why did he say that? So that possible amendments could be ready for the next legislative session. It's not announcing the review. That's what the minister and the Premier said in the House — that this report would have to be ready in advance of the February legislative session. Is that still the position of the minister?

Hon. S. Hagen: Certainly, the reporting out of this panel will be in ample time for the budget process and the spring legislative session.

Hon. S. Hagen: I love the way the member opposite tries to put words in my mouth. I appreciate that. However, what I said was that the reports of the panel will be made in time if anything needs to be done with regard to the budget or legislative requirements.

A. Dix: This review panel was announced and, apparently, unannounced at some point. It was announced in the House — when was it now, minister? I think it was October 4. That was a long week here in this House. The minister and the Premier announced it in this House. Great significance; great fanfare; great headlines.

They had to announce it in the House, because Judge Gove…. There was a big front-page headline in the TC, the Times Colonist. Judge Gove, who has enormous credibility on these issues, had contradicted in a dramatic way the position of the government for weeks. So the minister and the Premier met with Judge Gove. That was weeks ago.

Now, I say to the minister: what has the minister been doing? Not future policy, but past conduct. What has the minister been doing over the last month to set up this panel?

Hon. S. Hagen: I can tell you that I've been working very hard to make sure that this panel is structured in a very fair and even-handed way and that all views will be represented. We will be announcing the panel and

A. Dix: I guess one of the questions I have about this…. Perhaps this is the subject of another review that we can convince the minister to have about an important issue in British Columbia. One of the real concerns we have over the last four years…. I think we have to preface this by saying that, thankfully, the numbers of children who die in care and the numbers of children who die are low in an overall sense.

I wanted to ask, because statistics are kept in the ministry, if it concerns the minister and if it's a good reason, in fact, for these review processes, which the minister wasn't going to do on his own but we've encouraged him to do…. He seems to have responded to our encouragement over the last couple of months in this House. Is it a concern to the minister that the mortality rates for children in care have risen dramatically in the last four years since the government initiated cuts to the Ministry of Children and Family Development?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm advised by staff that there is no dramatic increase, and if anything, there's a decrease. We don't have the chart. If you have a chart, I'd appreciate you sharing it. Otherwise, we'll make sure that we have a chart for tomorrow.

A. Dix: Of course, I'm referring to the mortality rate per thousand population. I'm sure the minister will produce a chart.

I think one of the challenges, surely, that all of us face is to learn lessons when things go wrong. So I want to ask the minister — who for a whole year now, before being forced to do this review, thinks it's appropriate that there have really not been any public reviews since he became minister, with the exception of the case in Port Alberni — whether he thinks it's appropriate that the coroner hasn't been doing the reviews; whether he thinks it was good public policy to hand over responsibilities that used to reside with the children's commissioner and a $4-million budget to the coroner's service, which got an $800,000 cut from its existing level, an agency that has statutory authority in our province; whether he thinks that's appropriate under these circumstances; whether he thinks that was good public policy; whether he thinks his one or two or three reviews or whatever have been in public, match up to the 800 reviews that happened in the 1990s; whether that 1990s vision of an independent commissioner and an independent child advocate matches up with his vision of less information and less results and less lessons learned? How does he see that in his ministry?

Hon. S. Hagen: Certainly, the results of the last four years are very positive with regard to the number of children in care. Having said that, I'm more than happy to wait for the panel to complete its deliberations on these questions and others to find out for sure whether we are doing things the way they should be done, whether there are some things we can improve. I'm happy to await the outcome of the panel.

A. Dix: Does the minister not think that the move from 800 to three was inappropriate, was a mistake? And does he not agree that that mistake represented a profound broken promise and breach of trust by his government and the Premier?

Hon. S. Hagen: As you know, we will be announcing very shortly a panel of review to look into how the ministry does its child-death reviews, and I'm more than happy to let that panel do its work and come back with any recommendations that it sees fit to make.

A. Dix: Well, one last question on that panel. The minister and the Premier — and you know, in this government, that's pretty good; you get the minister and you get the Premier — both stated that Judge Gove would be on that panel. Is that still the case?

Hon. S. Hagen: As I said repeatedly, we will be announcing that panel. We'll be announcing it shortly. It will include the terms of reference and background and the time lines that we expect the panel to meet.

A. Dix: So the minister was categorical a few weeks ago, and now he's just not answering. Well, that's disappointing. They made an announcement. They made an announcement to take off the political heat, and that announcement sort of melts away like snow in May. It's a very disappointing result, I have to say, but I'm hopeful that the minister will do as he says and that he will give this panel an opportunity to do its work.

He and the Premier have already wasted a month, because it's been now a full month since they made that announcement. They announced that three members of the panel…. They announced they were going ahead, and they announced there would be results before the next legislative session. And we've had a month of that time, which, given when the legislative session is, is a grand total of four months. They've wasted a month of that time trying to put the panel together. I've got to ask the minister: what has he been doing on this file?

Hon. S. Hagen: That's actually the second time you've asked that question, and the way I answered it the first time is the way I'll answer it this time, and that is that we've been spending this time putting together the best people to make sure that all views are represented on the panel, that the terms of reference are in place and that the time lines are appropriate.

A. Dix: I want to ask a couple more questions about children in care, if I could. The minister has stated two or three dozen times so far in the estimates, in response to a variety of questions, that the number of children in care has been reduced significantly and has resulted in substantial reduction in costs to government. But this is

what I hear from foster parents and social workers. They say that the kids coming into care now generally have more complex problems. They also say that there's a shortage of specialized resources and support services to serve them. Even with the overall reduction in the number of children in care, the government is spending 20 percent less per child in some regions than it was in 2002-2003 — so children with more complex issues, more difficult issues, and the government's spending less to support each child.

Let's reflect on some of the things they're spending less on — things like providing money to buy Christmas presents, things like providing money for birthday presents, things like when a child goes into care not giving a clothing allowance. If you know anything about children, you know that how you dress in school is a really challenging question, and the minister and the ministry cut that. They thought those were the priorities to cut. Those are the kinds of things that they cut. Those are some of the things, some of the options that social workers can use, in fact, in order to make life better for children in care, to lead to better outcomes for children in care.

So if there are fewer children in care, and if in some region they're spending less per annum on children in care, and if the kids in care have more complex needs, isn't that putting children at risk?

Hon. S. Hagen: I want to repeat that the safety and well-being of children is always our number-one priority, and our figures show that the overall average cost per child is higher now because of more complex cases.

A. Dix: I wanted to ask a little bit about the Vancouver Island region. The ministry announced in April a $1.4 million cut to the region in order to meet budget targets. I wanted to ask the minister if the Vancouver Island region has implemented any of those cuts, and if so, what are they?

Hon. S. Hagen: No cuts have been implemented in the Vancouver Island region.

Hon. S. Hagen: As the member knows, that's a future policy question. What I'm saying is…. You asked the question: are there cuts in this year? I'm saying no.

A. Dix: Well, of course, this is a bit more sophistry, I guess, from the ministry, because they don't define it as a cut. They say what happened is that the region spent $1.4 million too much last year, so they're just giving them the same amount of money they gave them last year, so that's not a cut.

I'm asking the minister, because they talked about it…. And it's very interesting — their reaction — because this story came out during the election campaign. At the time, the reaction of the minister and the ministry wasn't to say: "Oh, we're going to protect essential services." It wasn't to say: "No, we're not going to do this cut." Their reaction was, at the time, to send out an internal memorandum and have the director of child protection threaten people for releasing confidential information. That was their reaction at the time. It's not to deal with the substance of the issue. But in fact, the next day in the media, we have the director of child protection, presumably sent out by the minister, talking about people shouldn't leak stuff, important stuff like $1.4 million in cuts in the region that's suffering the worst of cuts.

I wanted to ask the minister: if he's stating that there isn't $1.4 million in cuts, is he saying it hasn't been implemented, or it isn't going to happen?

Hon. S. Hagen: The budget for Vancouver Island region for '04-05 was $108 million; for '05-06, it's $113 million. That looks to me like a $5 million increase.

A. Dix: So the minister is saying that there will not be any further layoffs in child protection on Vancouver Island?

Hon. S. Hagen: I did not say there would be any further reductions, but I can repeat again that the budget for '04-05 was $108 million; the budget for '05-06 is $113 million. With regard to staffing, obviously, the ministry reserves the right to staff in the appropriate way.

A. Dix: Well, now we're getting somewhere — I say to the minister. He states that he didn't say there wouldn't be layoffs in this area in child protection, so can he tell us: will there be layoffs on Vancouver Island?

A. Dix: I'm sure that will be excellent news to social workers on Vancouver Island who, as the minister knows because he's an MLA for Vancouver Island, have really faced the brunt of the cuts over the last few years. So it's delightful news for social workers and for children in care on Vancouver Island that there aren't going to be more cuts from the minister. This is delightful news.

I wanted to return, because as the minister will remember — and we're coming to the end of the evening here — that he distracted the discussion on to the issue of kith and kin towards the beginning of the evening. I wanted to return to the question he didn't answer at the beginning of the evening which is: over the four years that he described of his government in office, has there been a reduction in children and family spending by his ministry?

Hon. S. Hagen: Might I remind the member that we are here to discuss this year's budget, and I'm prepared

A. Dix: I guess, then, the answer to that question is yes. The ministry has cut staff, has cut resources, has cut supports for children in care, but the minister won't answer the question because they happened in 2002, 2003 and 2004, and the diminishment of the level and quality of service occurred in those years.

I want to go back to the minister on this question, though, because he, again…. On this question of the reduction of children in care. This is a fundamental question that was raised in Jane Morley's survey. It's a fundamental question for people I meet, which is that the reduction of children in care sometimes could also mean there are more children in unsafe homes or youth on the street. Does the minister agree with that statement?

Hon. S. Hagen: The number of children in care is only one of the measurements we use in our success. Another huge thing that we look at is how many kids have been left in families, because we think that's really important.

A. Dix: I'm delighted the minister finds it important. It's not really in the estimates of this ministry, but the fact of the matter is the government has repeatedly cut supports for families through his colleague, the Minister of Employment and Income Assistance. Human Resources Ministers over the years repeatedly cut options for families and repeatedly cut supports for income assistance. Sadly, what he has done and the government has done is taken away from many families the capacity to provide for their children the lives that those children deserve, because those children didn't deserve that fate. I know it's common for people on the other side of the House to talk about people deserving their fate, of them not working hard, of them not wanting to be employed, but that certainly doesn't apply to children.

Will the minister agree that cuts, especially cuts in the past Ministries of Human Resources — the names have changed a few times — have hurt children in care by undermining supports for families?

Hon. S. Hagen: What the ministry has done is shifted our focus with budget increases in the following areas: for adoptions, which we've been very successful, from $3.3 million a year to $17.3 million a year; in out of care and alternatives to care, kith and kin and other tools for keeping families together, from $400,000 a year to $2.4 million a year; and for aboriginal services from $7.8 million to $18.7 million a year.

A. Dix: Well, following up, to the minister: does the minister believe that a reduction in the number of children in care justifies a lower budget for child protection?

Hon. S. Hagen: If the question is, "Is the reduction in children in care a reason for a lower budget?" it's certainly one of the reasons. The main cost driver in our ministry is children in care, as the member well knows. That's been reduced by 15 percent or 16 percent, and we've done that by keeping children in families — through kith and kin and through other arrangements.

I think it's good news. I mean, surely you agree that it's good news to have fewer kids in care. Surely you would agree that it's good news to have fewer people on social services income. I mean, isn't that good news? I know there were ministers in the government that you were in who sort of drove those numbers higher, for some reason, but also there were ministers in the government that you were in who drove those numbers lower. You know, we very much would like to see fewer children in care, because to us that means happier families.

A. Dix: I think child-protection professionals, many of the ones I've talked to, have pointed out to me — and I'm sure they've pointed out to the minister — that alternatives to keeping children in care can actually cost more if they're done well and prudently. This was, in fact, a theme, given that the minister presumably read the Asking Questions report. Perhaps all members on the government side have read it. The Minister of Health may have read it. It was a very useful report for him.

I wanted to ask the minister: does he believe and does he agree with me that alternatives to care, if done properly, require proper resourcing? In fact, on some of the alternatives to care that this government has used, the children in care get significantly less of other supports than they need to succeed in those arrangements.

Hon. S. Hagen: As the member knows, children are different. There are different funding requirements for different children. Let me read into the record what the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform says, as referred to in the New York Times. It talks about ten ways to do child welfare right. Here are just some of the things that it talks about. It emphasizes keeping families together and utilizing extended family and community, i.e. kith-and-kin and neighbourhood partnerships — to avoid foster placements.

We were not driven by budget. We were driven by research and best practices in the child welfare field.

A. Dix: I don't think doing the first thing that the government did, which was to cut child care funding, which is a budget choice of the government…. They've only turned around when the federal government has come forward.

I'll tell the minister, so he can prepare as we carry on tomorrow. I was going to move on to aboriginal authorities and aboriginal issues, but I think people are coming from the other House, and it's a little late to be starting that particular file.

So I'll move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported resolution, was granted leave to sit again.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.

Hon. T. Christensen: I thought I would take a bit of an opportunity to speak a little bit about the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, given that it is a new ministry in this term of government.

I do want to give you a bit of an idea of what I've been up to for the last few months as well as a bit of an overview of the ministry, which will probably help some of the estimates process along.

Certainly, since June when I was appointed minister, I've actually had the great privilege and opportunity to speak with a number of first nations around the province, a number of aboriginal people around the province and other British Columbians about first nations issues. Quite frankly, I'm encouraged and optimistic about where we are at, at this point in our history. I think we do have a significant opportunity to make progress on a file that has befuddled governments in this province for many, many years and has posed a challenge to all British Columbians for many, many years.

What I have encountered over the last number of months are strong, visionary aboriginal leaders here in British Columbia; hard-working, forward-looking youth, who are excited about the opportunities that lie ahead of them; and knowledgable and wise elders, who have been able to tell me about the challenges of the past and what they believe to be some of the paths forward.

It's important, as we move forward with trying to solve the challenges and take advantage of the opportunities that exist for first nations and aboriginal people here in British Columbia, that we be listening to all of those people as well as other British Columbians to find solutions and to try and overcome the challenges that have existed in the past, the disagreements and the conflict that have too often been really the mark of first nations issues, and that we try to work together to find solutions, going forward.

Members will know that we had the opportunity over the summer to sign the fifth agreement-in-principle with the Yekooche first nation. There's an excellent example of a first nation that has really overcome significant hurdles over the course of the last four or five years, in terms of the social conditions in their community. They've benefited from strong leadership over the past number of years that has really brought the community together to ask for outside assistance, as necessary, and to take the steps that were needed to move forward. It's in a community that's excited about where they're at in the treaty process and is really looking forward to the opportunities that a final treaty will ultimately provide.

I've had the opportunity to attend the AGM of the B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres. Again, friendship centres exist in many communities around the province and really provide a host of very beneficial services to our aboriginal people that find themselves in what we call urban centres. I hesitate to use the word "urban" because many of those communities are smaller urban communities in our province. I guess the point is that the friendship centres do exist in what we consider to be the cities of British Columbia, as opposed to on reserve, and do provide very significant and beneficial services to the urban aboriginal population.

I think it's equally important to recognize that part of the role of this new Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation is to truly work across government so that it's not the responsibility of this ministry only within government to be working with first nations or delivering services to aboriginal people. It's the responsibility of this ministry to provide leadership and to try and coordinate the range of relations that government has with first nations and aboriginal people. Certainly, we have committed, as a government, to working in each ministry to develop more positive, constructive

and collaborative relationships working with first nations and aboriginal people, and there are early signs that that is taking hold.

I was very pleased to be able to attend the mountain pine beetle conference that the first nations hosted in Prince George, a few weeks ago now, with the Minister of Forests. It was a very positive couple of days where both the Minister of Forests and Range and I came away very impressed with the discussion that occurred in those two days and the opportunity to work with first nations in addressing what I think all of us are coming to recognize is one of the most — if not the most — significant natural disasters that British Columbia has ever had to face, certainly on a forestry front. Again, the input that first nations are able to provide us in moving that file forward is critical to making progress in meeting the needs of aboriginal people and assisting in meeting the needs of all British Columbians.

I've had the opportunity to attend an annual general meeting of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. Those are the chiefs that represent the bands that have chosen not to participate in the treaty negotiation process, but they are anxious to work with government in the development of the new relationship to see how the members of those first nations can share in the economic promise in British Columbia and in the economic opportunities that lie ahead. They are focused — like all of us from any community in the province are — on providing employment opportunities for their first nations and on developing stronger communities, and we are certainly keen to be working with them on that.

Similarly, the Premier and I attended one of the annual meetings with the First Nations Summit and, again, came away impressed with the efforts that first nations are making to improve the lives of aboriginal people in the province, and we're keen to continue that work with them.

It's equally important, as we embark on this path of developing a new relationship, that we be working not only with first nations and aboriginal people but also with other British Columbians to ensure that there's really a broad-based and constructive effort, going forward, for all of us to really reconcile the interests of aboriginal and non-aboriginal British Columbians. On that front, I've certainly had constructive discussions with a number of local governments at the Union of B.C. Municipalities. I was pleased to come away from the UBCM very impressed with local governments' commitment to working with the first nations that they interact with on a regular basis.

What we're starting to see is a number of local governments and regional districts that are signing protocol agreements with their neighbouring first nations. Sometimes those are just in respect of servicing agreements — you know, some of the infrastructure services that neighbouring communities often share. In some cases they go beyond that in terms of the constructive relationship that is being developed there. I think all of us at the provincial level can learn from what is happening at that more local level, and we need to keep on top of what is going on there.

I do want to just spend a few moments to tell you a bit about the breadth of the ministry, given that it is new. The Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation has primary responsibility for forging new relationships with aboriginal people. We continue to be focused on negotiating treaties and other agreements with first nations to create the economic certainty over Crown land and resources and to materially improve the lives of aboriginal people in British Columbia.

I think the new name for the ministry does reflect our sincere intention to foster effective social and economic relationships with aboriginal people and to become partners for a better tomorrow right across British Columbia. We've said this, and the Premier in particular has said this over the last number of months on many occasions: British Columbia is not going to recognize its full potential unless aboriginal British Columbians are partners in the province's future socioeconomic development and aboriginal people are truly recognizing their full potential within British Columbia.

Really, that recognition is one that is the foundation of the change we are trying to facilitate. It's a change where we recognize what has occurred in the past in our relationship with first nations and aboriginal people but look forward to building a better British Columbia collaboratively, together.

Certainly, British Columbia, we are finding, is at the forefront in this shift in direction and on this positive path forward in Canada, and we've had a number of constructive discussions with the federal government in terms of where they are trying to go. We hear the Prime Minister talk about transformative change in the relationship between the federal government and first nations.

We believe there's a great opportunity to be working collaboratively with the federal government and first nations and aboriginal people in B.C. to actually make progress on the many challenges that exist.

I think all of us would concede that too often our relationship with the federal government gets bogged down in some of the jurisdictional arguments that exist, and certainly, we need to be mindful of the constitutional responsibilities that the federal government has with respect to aboriginal people in Canada. But we do need to find a way — that we are recognizing a path forward — where we're working together to actually make change on the ground that benefits both aboriginal and, ultimately, non-aboriginal British Columbians. So, again, I'm excited and optimistic about the opportunity that exists in terms of moving that discussion forward.

I will comment just briefly on…. I mentioned earlier that one of the focuses and responsibilities in this ministry is to ensure that we're working across government

to develop relationships between all ministries of government and first nations. There are a number of initiatives that are underway on that front that really reflect some significant progress. We are working with other ministries on a number of specific goals, certainly with the Ministry of Education to increase participation in aboriginal literacy programs, including those in aboriginal languages, and to make continuing progress in our public education system on narrowing the gap that exists in educational outcomes between aboriginal and non-aboriginal students.

My ministry is working with the Ministry of Health to develop British Columbia's contribution to a national blueprint to raise aboriginal health outcomes to the average for other Canadians within the next decade. Again, that's a major step forward. It's a challenge that we should've embarked upon years ago, but it is one where we truly believe that with a concerted effort of the federal government and the provincial government working with first nations, we can make significant progress there.

We continue to work with the Ministry of Children and Family Development to develop a comprehensive strategy to better coordinate funding and support and services for aboriginal children, and, again, to work collaboratively with first nations in trying to find the answers to what is often a very perplexing challenge for all of us in trying to ensure that all of our children are well-supported and safe.

We're working with the Ministry of Community Services to increase aboriginal representation in the public service and with the Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services to extend broadband Internet to 100 first nations communities across B.C. by next year, again, to ensure that those communities can take advantage of the opportunities that lie ahead, just as other British Columbians can.

Finally, we're working with the Ministry of Tourism, Sports and the Arts to develop an integrated first nations tourism cultural strategy, including the celebration of the North American Indigenous Games in the Cowichan Valley in 2008, and trying to ensure that first nations around British Columbia benefit from the significant opportunities and the legacies that will be provided by the 2010 Winter Olympic Games, which are rapidly coming upon us.

As I indicated, we remain very committed to moving forward in the treaty negotiation process and getting to final agreements. That has been somewhat elusive, I think it's fair to admit, but progress is being made.

We now have five agreements-in-principle in place: the Lheidli T'enneh first nation in the Prince George area; the Sliammon near Powell River; the Maa-nulth first nations on Vancouver Island; the Tsawwassen first nation on the lower mainland; and, as I indicated earlier, the most recent AIP, the Yekooche first nation, which is outside Fort St. James. Treaty negotiations are also under way with more than 40 other first nations. I remain hopeful and optimistic, with good reason, that we will see some further agreements-in-principle in the coming weeks and months.

With that, I've probably gone on more than I should, as an introduction, but I felt it was important to set out some of what is happening within the ministry. I will sit down now and let my friend zero in on some of those points or, perhaps, others.

My apologies to my staff, who all work extra diligently to try and ensure that I have the information I need. I'm pleased to introduce my associate deputy minister, Joy Illington; Mike Furey, assistant deputy minister for negotiations. I've got others back here: Barbara Reuther, assistant deputy minister of corporate services; Lynn Beak, who's the acting senior negotiator of consultation and accommodation; Ingrid Fee, who's a director of corporate planning; and John Harper, who is our director of social and economic initiatives.

S. Fraser: I would like to thank the minister and his staff. It's been an exciting time. The portfolio that I have received as the official opposition is one that I requested. I have met with the minister already, and I've met with the staff a number of times, and everyone has been very helpful.

I, too, am encouraged by the turn of events — a new stand-alone ministry. I'm encouraged by the words, the name of the ministry — Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. They are the right words at the right time, I think. I also am encouraged by the words of the throne speech and the budget speech and the New Relationship document itself.

I think the new relationship is something that maybe we can learn from as a government-opposition relationship too. I did express to the minister that I would not be obstructive if I saw true relationship-building and reconciliation. I understand the challenges around that, so I'm mindful of that.

I don't know if it's been noticed, but the question period questions I have been addressing have not been directly to the minister. I am patient, and I know that we are moving in a new era, and I'll have to be mindful of that.

In my role as opposition here today, my questioning…. I'll try to be mindful of the needs of staff. There are a few specific questions I've received from individual nations, and I'll try to get those out on the floor before we break for dinner so that if there is information on that, staff can be able to get that. I don't expect some of these answers here, and I'm mindful of the reality of trying to deal with this as a new ministry.

If I could just touch on a couple of things. I have a lot more I'd like to say, but I think I should get right into it. I know we're trying to do this today. We're hoping to end this today, so being mindful of the time requirements, I won't orate anymore.

There has been a lot of press made about the $100 million which is, of course, not part of this budget. The minister's staff have explained that, but for the record, I'd just like to get any kind of a statement on the $100 million, because it does leave a few question marks as I go through the service plan. Just for clarity, if I may ask how that's being dealt with. There have been some statements made within the service plan and the budget that I'm assuming don't reflect that $100 million, since the usage hasn't been determined yet. I would appreciate some clarification on that.

Hon. T. Christensen: As the member knows, in the September budget update the government made the commitment to establish a New Relationship fund and a commitment of $100 million to that fund. At the time, we recognized and were very deliberate in saying that we're not going to decide unilaterally how this fund should be structured.

We do want to ensure that there are appropriate accountabilities within the fund, but we're now working with the B.C. First Nations Leadership Council. They are trying to get the input of first nations to try and help bring some definition to exactly how the fund will work. As that gets put together, our intention is to return to the Legislature in the spring and get the appropriate legislative mechanism there to structure the fund, if legislation is necessary, as well as the appropriate appropriation of funds.

S. Fraser: Thank you, minister, for clarifying that. Just so I have it clear, we won't be dealing with that at this point in time. Today we'll be dealing with the budget as laid out — the $30.268 million and how that's to be used.

I'm not an accountant. If I can just start on the Estimates page that I've received here from your staff, the bottom line on that is $38.987 million, in the left-hand column. Am I just missing something? That differs from the number that we're dealing with in Vote 9 today.

Hon. T. Christensen: I think the member may be looking at the wrong year. For the 2005-2006 Vote 9, ministry operations, it's the $30.268 million. There is then an additional, separate statutory appropriation for the First Citizens Fund special account, which is $4.2 million.

S. Fraser: I am looking at the Estimates, 2005-2006, consolidated revenue fund for reconciliation. At the bottom it does say: "Total Operating Expense, Capital Expenditures and Authorized FTEs — 2004-2005 Restated." Have I got an old sheet? Is that my dilemma? I can pass this over, if you'd like. I'm just not sure.

Hon. T. Christensen: I think we're looking at the same page except they're…. It may not be the exact same page. The one I'm looking at has two columns. One is 2004-2005, and the other is 2005-2006. The one that I'm referring to specifically in terms of this budget year is 2005-2006.

S. Fraser: I've just passed it over through the Chair, if I could just get some clarification. The dates on that are 2004-2005.

S. Fraser: We're following through, and 2005-2006 is $30.268 million as stated at the beginning of the meeting. Thank you for bearing with me on that and for clarifying that. If you could pass that back, that would be great. Thank you.

I've got a series of questions that just came up as I went through the service plan, first of all. I'll be fairly chronological with the service plan, just from the beginning to end. In the ministry overview there is reference in the beginning to the five great goals. I'm just wondering at the very beginning here: how does the minister explain his plan as far as the five great goals go? The actual layout in the service plan doesn't directly refer to the costs of implementing the goals as such. The goals are somewhat nebulous. Is this something that will be determined as the ministry develops and matures?

Hon. T. Christensen: The five great goals provide the general direction for where government is going over the next decade. We're certainly mindful of all five of those goals in all that we focus on within this ministry and, it's fair to say, across government.

I would certainly argue that everything that this ministry is involved in — whether it's treaty negotiations, the new relationship, various direct services to aboriginal British Columbians — is in one way or another supportive of one or more of those five goals. Truly, the foundation of the new relationship is built on a recognition that British Columbia as a whole is not going to reach any one of those five goals unless aboriginal British Columbians are part and parcel of the path to getting there.

What we are trying to do is develop a truly new, constructive relationship with first nations and aboriginal British Columbians in pursuit of those five goals. What then happens is…. For example, in the first goal — to make B.C. the best-educated, most literate jurisdiction on the continent — much of the on-the-ground work will be undertaken by the Ministry of Education, but certainly with the support of the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. We are able to provide advice and support in terms of the relationship with first nations and aboriginal people that is necessary for the Ministry of Education to be meeting that one goal — as an example.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for the clarification. Where I have trouble…. Your staff have been patient with me on this too. The goals, as laid out in the prelude of the service plan…. A lot of the goals span

many ministries, so it gets confusing in reviewing this and trying to get some kind of numbers that actually correspond with either the goals, which I understand are ten-year, a larger plan….

When it comes to on-the-ground ministries fulfilling the mandate that's laid out in the service plan of this budget, how is that reflected in the budget in a broader sense? It could be Ministry of Forests, Environment. It could be a fisheries issue. It could be dealing with mining. All of these ministries are an intricate part of the new relationship. The Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation is sort of an umbrella organization, as I see it, to help coordinate this.

Excuse my confusion here, but I don't see how to quantify the budget. When it hits the ground with other ministries, how to make…. At the end of the day, it's the other ministries that work with first nations. I'm sorry to be so vague on this. I'll start vague and get more specific. You may be able to just clear this up early.

Hon. T. Christensen: I think one of the challenges that the member may encounter is if he's attempting to look for a specific dollar figure in a service plan that lines up specifically with one of the five great goals. The goals are overarching goals for government. There will be various initiatives within different ministries that are supportive of those goals. In some cases, those initiatives will have specific budget items attached to them. In other cases, it won't be a budget matter.

In many respects, certainly within the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, part of attaining the goal is actually the development of the relationship so that we're working with first nations in the development of a particular policy or in respect of a particular economic opportunity that may exist in order to build capacity within that first nation and allow them to participate more fully in the economy. The goals aren't budget items as much as they are overarching goals that other initiatives across government are lined up with pursuing the goals.

I think it may help, in respect to the service plan document itself, to refer the member to page 13, I think, of the service plan, where we've attempted to set out the ministry goals and how those line up with one or more of the five great goals.

S. Fraser: I'm on page 13, and I have reviewed this. Maybe I'll put it a little differently. The message I'm receiving from first nations leadership is that they are not seeing anything tangible around the words so far. I don't mean that with any disrespect. I know these things take a long time, sometimes, to trickle through to actually affecting the ground level.

We had three bills that went by last week — Bills 6, 7 and 8. They referred to the money that was coming forward for economic development for various regions in the province. As I read the bills, I believed I saw an omission that seemed to contradict the New Relationship document and the words of the throne speech and the budget speech. Since it was the first bill of its kind dealing with economic development on a regional basis, it seemed to me that there was an omission of nobody on the advisory committee representing first nations. I guess that was not quite the right way to put it, but first nations were not present on the advisory committee.

As we look at page 13, the last statement says: "Build strong and respectful relationships between government and aboriginal organizations based on a shared commitment to reconciliation and recognition." Now, I just wondered if the minister could explain. The actions of the government last week seem to contradict that statement and, actually, a number of statements in the service plan. Since we're on page 13, I'll hit that one first.

Hon. T. Christensen: There are a couple of issues that the member has raised. I appreciate him doing that.

I certainly am hearing, in some respects, the same concern that the member has heard from individual first nations, who are saying: "Where are the tangible results on the ground?" What I've indicated to those individual first nations is that we're working forward to push the concept of the new relationship down to the ground. I think when you're dealing with, really, well over a century of government taking a particular approach to first nations, it's not going to all change overnight. We are attempting to work with first nations in development of a new consultation and accommodation framework within the new relationship so that it works on the ground for first nations.

We have taken a couple of specific steps in support of the new relationship that I don't think would have been the same a few years ago and that I think are tangible examples of government taking a different approach. One of those is the commitment to the New Relationship fund, where there's a strong recognition by government that we need to be building capacity within first nations so that there's the capacity to effectively participate in the decisions that the new relationship will require all of us to be sharing in. That would be one.

The second would be the mountain pine beetle forum. Government financially supported the holding of the forum and was a participant in the two days, primarily in a listening mode in terms of trying to hear from first nations themselves as to what they saw as being the significant challenges that the mountain pine beetle presents to first nations and how they felt government could move forward in doing that.

They have since provided an action plan to government. I understand that the Minister of Forests is considering that. Again, that's something where there's a concerted effort to try and work more closely with first nations in trying to resolve that issue.

In respect of Bills 6, 7 and 8, which I believe the member referred to, I know that those issues were canvassed at some length with the Minister of Economic Development when the bills were debated in the House. The minister indicated, certainly, that it's the government's intent, in establishing the board for each of those trusts, to ensure that there is first nations participation on that board at the decision-making level so that there is effective representation going forward.

B. Simpson: Since the minister has raised the matter of the mountain pine beetle conference in Prince George, there is some lack of clarity around that. I think it would help if we did get some clarity around that.

What is the ministry's role in ongoing discussions with first nations around the outcomes of that? Is it playing a supportive role or a lead role? This is one example, again, of an interministerial approach, but who's got the lead on substantive discussions going forward?

Hon. T. Christensen: The lead is the Minister of Forests. We play a support role to the extent that we can provide assistance to them, but the lead is definitely the Ministry of Forests.

B. Simpson: When it comes to discussion of apportioning the federal dollars — which was part of the outcome of that particular conference — and now consultations, as we revealed in the House today, around going after further federal dollars, does the minister's staff involve themselves in those discussions?

Hon. T. Christensen: In terms of the apportionment of the funding that's available from the federal government, again, the Ministry of Forests would be the lead in putting together that plan and apportioning funds. They would be the lead in terms of looking to the federal government for further contribution.

I think, to be fair, it becomes somewhat of a cross-government initiative, in that the Ministry of Forests consults with other ministries at the staff level to get input in terms of what the needs are. Obviously, it's better to ask the Minister of Forests in terms of the extent of those consultations. Certainly, in any discussions I would have with my federal counterparts, I would be emphasizing, to any federal minister I came in contact with, the importance of the federal government's contribution to addressing this significant challenge that we have as a province.

S. Fraser: I'll take a step back. The other member had questions regarding the beetle plan. In the response that the minister gave when we were dealing with Bills 6, 7 and 8, I'm not sure I agree. The bills specifically omitted first nations. They weren't even mentioned as far as being involved in an advisory capacity on the advisory committees on those trusts. The amendment I put forward, which I considered a friendly amendment, based on the words of the new relationship, would have ensured that there would have been first nations representation on those advisory committees of the three respective trusts.

Again, I just see that on Bill 8 the House was actually called back for that to ensure that we were getting a clear message here. By legislation, the government voted against ensuring the inclusion of first nations on those advisory trusts. For me, that's a polar contradiction to a number of parts of the New Relationship document. If I can get clarification on that.

Hon. T. Christensen: I may have missed the last part of the member's question, for which I apologize if I did. As I said earlier, I know that the structure of the trusts that were established through Bills 6, 7 and 8 was canvassed at some length, as was the proposed amendment in the debate on those bills. The Minister of Economic Development, I think, addressed those questions quite specifically.

The Chair: Member, one moment, please. What you cannot do in estimates is debate legislation — okay?

Going back to the service plan. The ministry overview in core business areas, as we look towards the five goals, and I know they're a ten-year plan…. Specifically, it says that number one is to make B.C. the best-educated and most literate jurisdiction on the continent. In reflecting on how that will be accomplished in the aboriginal communities in B.C., are there specifics that you can point out? Increases in this budget compared to the…? It spanned several ministries previously. Can the minister indicate how working towards the most educated and most literate jurisdiction on the continent will be achieved even in the short term or the long term?

Hon. T. Christensen: As I said earlier, I think we need to be careful in trying to tie dollar figures to specific goals. What we need to ensure, first and foremost, is that the dollars that government is already spending are being used to actually advance those goals and make progress. There are a number of existing initiatives that I certainly believe are effective, and there are some new things we're looking at that I'll just highlight.

Within the issue of aboriginal languages specifically, there are a couple of different things going on. One where the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation has some direct involvement is through the First Peoples Heritage, Language and Culture Council. That is funded through the First Citizens Fund. It is an organization that is actually a world leader in using, as I understand it, web-based learning in terms of aboriginal languages and preserving those

languages and, ideally, expanding the number of people who are able to speak aboriginal languages.

There are some significant challenges in that. I think the challenge is greater in British Columbia than in most other parts of Canada, in that I believe that somewhere in the neighbourhood of 60 percent of the first nations languages which exist in Canada are actually in British Columbia. That does require a greater effort in British Columbia than, perhaps, in other provinces, and we're trying to emphasize that in our work with the federal government.

I believe Heritage Canada has indicated that they are making a significant commitment of funds to enhancing aboriginal languages. We want to ensure that British Columbia gets an equitable share of that support, given that so many of the languages' homes are here in British Columbia. That's one avenue.

The others are certainly within the Ministry of Education. Again, the member would be better to seek some response from the Minister of Education directly. I can tell you that the ministry has worked hard there in developing aboriginal education enhancement agreements between first nations and individual school districts that assist in providing some focus on first nations culture and language developments. That's one way it is supporting literacy and aboriginal languages.

There's some continuing work, as I understand, within the Ministry of Advanced Education in terms of the institutions that it's responsible for. Unfortunately, those questions are better directed to those ministers directly.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister. I know this is difficult for all of us, because a lot of these span so many different ministries. It gets quite difficult.

Possibly, while we're on it, a bit of clarification on the First Citizens Fund. My understanding is that it has doubled or nearly doubled since 2001. Can the minister or the staff please explain where the funding sources are for that? I'm not clear from the document here. I know the fund itself has been around since the '60s, but actually, the sources of the funds elude me.

Hon. T. Christensen: The First Citizens Fund is part of consolidated revenue of government, but it is kept as a separate fund. It was established back in 1969 as a perpetual fund with an original investment of $25 million. In 2001 government made a new-era commitment to double the First Citizens Fund to $72 million. Obviously, the $25 million had gone up to $36 million at some point there.

That commitment, in terms of doubling it to $72 million, has been fully implemented, and the account balance as of the end of 2005 was $72.359 million. The fund then goes to support a number of initiatives. Some of those include, on the business development side in terms of this fiscal year, a little over $1.5 million in business loans and about $345,000 in terms of business advisory centres. It funds the friendship centre program, at about $720,000; a student bursary program, at $125,000; and an elders transportation program, at about $25,000. Then, as I referred to before, the First Peoples Heritage, Language and Culture Council receives funding of $1 million from the First Citizens Fund.

S. Fraser: Am I correct in assuming, then, that these are provincial funds and that this is wholly funded provincially?

S. Fraser: This is truly a trust, so the funds of the First Citizens Fund are distributed from the interest, and the principal is not being used. Is that correct?

Hon. T. Christensen: Yes, it is the interest. It's an endowment fund, essentially.

S. Fraser: As I ask questions that require a one-word answer at best, both of us will get confused on this. I'll see if I can go slower on that too. But thanks for the clarification and in as brief a form as possible. I appreciate that.

I have to ask, as the funds vary based on interest rates or investments…. I'd like some clarification if I could. The way that I'm phrasing it, if it's correct, would possibly make the economic certainty of some programs somewhat variable. If I could get some clarification on that, please.

Hon. T. Christensen: Certainly I'm told that the dollars in the fund tend to be invested in longer-term bonds to try and keep some stability in terms of the revenue that the fund is providing on an annual basis. But the member is correct: there can be some fluctuation. We do our best to keep it stable, recognizing that we don't want to be impacting services. There is actually a bit of a buffer built into the fund, if there's a particular year where interest rates aren't being nice to us.

S. Fraser: I appreciate that. I've been involved in the creation of a trust in the Clayoquot Biosphere. The $12 million actually was…. At one point with the investments, some of the principal got eaten away. It's unfortunate because it halts all programs until that can be rebuilt. So I'm glad to hear that.

For clarity on this fund, it is figured in the service plan for the budget, but the actual dollars of this are not reflected in the budget. Am I correct in that?

Hon. T. Christensen: The principal of the fund doesn't show up in the ministry budget, as the member will see, or in Vote 9 that I moved the motion for. The money of the First Citizens Fund is not included in Vote 9. It is a separate statutory appropriation, and the income or the revenue from the fund that is available for programming is as shown in the service plan, and the budget is $4.2 million.

S. Fraser: For instance, with the business loan program…. Rather than deal with all of these separately, because there are the bullets…. The minister was good enough to give me the numbers in one of the last questions. I'm not sure if I have it in my documentation, but in the service plan I'm looking at, the actual numbers for each — the business loan program, the friendship centre program…. I don't have the breakdown of the $4.2 million. Maybe I do elsewhere. If I do have it elsewhere, if you could let me know where I could find it. If not, if I could get that breakdown and, also, a comparison, maybe, from previous years.

Hon. T. Christensen: I suspect that the member doesn't actually have a breakdown of the different programs, but I do have a page here that does provide that.

I'll caution the member that the numbers on the bottom show the provincial contribution to certain programs as well as the federal contribution. It's the bigger numbers at the top that show the First Citizens Fund allocations. I'm happy to provide that to the member.

To be clear, there is a federal portion…. Am I correct in stating that the federal portion is not part of the First Citizens trust, that that's in a different category, or it goes under a different name? Clarification there, please.

Hon. T. Christensen: Yes, you're correct that the First Citizens Fund does not include federal money. What happens is that some of the programs in the community that the First Citizens Fund supports also receive funding from the federal government.

Are these programs, then, funded in a…? Is there a joint formula, like for infrastructure programs where we see municipalities receiving money? They put in a third, and the provincial government puts in a third and the federal government…. Is there some formula to help guarantee that fund again, in general?

Hon. T. Christensen: The extent to which a program might be shared with the federal government really varies from program to program, but we certainly do pursue funding from the federal government. When we think there is an opportunity to do that to support a valuable program and we're making a financial contribution to it, we'll certainly look to the federal government to make an equal, or in some cases more than equal, contribution as well.

The criteria for access to the proceeds of this fund — are they laid out specifically? They are for first nations use, aboriginal use. Does that include Métis? Could you give me clarification on just who would be eligible initially for that fund?

Hon. T. Christensen: There are a number of levels. We have a Native Economic Development Advisory Board that is appointed by government, made up of aboriginal peoples in British Columbia who provide advice to me as minister in terms of the overall budgets for each of the programs. We then have devolved the actual administration of those dollars to a number of different aboriginal organizations in the province.

For example, the business loans program is administered by the All Nations Trust. It is an aboriginal organization that an individual first nation or aboriginal person would then apply to, to access the money that has been allocated to that program by government. That's the All Nations Trust, which administers the business loan program. Similarly, the friendship centre program, the student bursary program and the elders transportation program are administered by the B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres.

As I indicated before, there's a million dollars that we provide to the First Peoples Heritage, Language and Culture Council. They use some portion of those dollars in terms of their own programs, but again, some of those dollars can be applied for by individual first nations.

S. Fraser: Thank you to the minister for that. These advisory boards, if I may — are they…? There's more than one. Am I correct? Is there more than one board associated with the citizens trust? Have they broken down different boards for each of the different bullets?

Hon. T. Christensen: It is NEDAB — the Native Economic Development Advisory Board — that provides advice with respect to the First Citizens Fund. Having said that, obviously other aboriginal organizations that are getting funding through the First Citizens Fund do have contact with the ministry and with myself from time to time and, certainly, will inform us what they're doing and the importance of it and where, if additional dollars became available, they might focus some of those.

S. Fraser: Thank you for that response. This is probably a good time to…. I have a specific question from a specific first nation. The Tla-o-qui-aht First Nation is asking a question regarding low-interest loans. This may be an appropriate time to deal with that since business loans and such are dealt with by the trust. So while we're on the topic…. I appreciate it if there's no specific answer now. If you can get back to me on their behalf, that would be helpful.

The Tla-o-qui-aht First Nation on the west coast of Vancouver Island — it's Nuu-chah-nulth territory — is exploring the possibility of joint ventures, and they're hoping to develop a stronger economic portfolio. As in many first nations, this nation, the Tla-o-qui-aht, is

somewhat cash-lacking resource-wise. Land-wise, they certainly have assets based on recent court decisions, but they'd like to be able to have access to some low-interest loans to hopefully develop these new relationships, these joint ventures. Is this something that…? What would be the process for the Tla-o-qui-aht leadership to move towards accessing some low-interest loans?

Hon. T. Christensen: I'm not trying to put the member off, but I think if there are specific questions from individual first nations, I'm hoping…. Well, I may be setting a pattern here in terms of what my response might be. We're best to get the details from the member so that the ministry can look at what options might be available, depending on what they're looking for. There's the possibility that some of the funding in terms of business loans through the First Citizens Fund may be applicable, but it may not be because those tend to be relatively small business loans. We may also be aware of potential federal funding available, so the member's best to give us the details, and we can see what, if anything, we can find out.

S. Fraser: I respect that position. I will forward the information on to the minister and his staff. I'll try to get these in a form, before we break, to give them to the minister and staff to see if we can get some resources to some of these communities that are looking for help or to at least find out how they might be able to go about that, what process is involved.

There may be other funds available in this budget. With this new ministry, are there any other new funds? This is an existing trust fund that has been set up and certainly has had significant increases. Are there other funds that might be able to help entrepreneurial ventures that first nations are hoping to undertake or joint ventures with other communities, either other aboriginal communities or non–first nations?

Hon. T. Christensen: The ministry does not administer any other business loan program. It's certainly much too early to say, but to the extent that the funding may be sought for a capacity-building type of initiative, it may be that the structure of the New Relationship fund may allow for that. I'm certainly not going to make that commitment today. It's something that we do very much need to be hearing from first nations in terms of how that can best be structured.

The other potential new opportunity that exists is through one of the development trusts — the northern development trust, the southern interior or the north island development trusts. Again, it remains to be seen exactly how those funds may be allocated. They may provide for grants on the economic development front, or they may choose to structure them through loans. That will be up to those boards.

S. Fraser: Since we're talking about development trusts, I won't talk about the legislation with respect to the ruling of the Chair regarding Bills 6, 7 and 8. But if I can talk directly about the trusts….

If funds were to be achieved from first nations through those trusts, the way they are currently set up, they do not include…. There is no assurance that first nations have a role in the advisory capacity. The minister responsible explained to me that as an MLA, I could be providing that advice to the boards on behalf of first nations — not me as a critic, but as an MLA. Any MLA could do that.

I have some problems with that as far as representation goes, because I have no ability as a non–first nation to provide traditional knowledge or wisdom of elders — that sort of thing. So by the time those trusts get to the point where they might be making decisions for funding and with no assurance of first nations representation at the advisory committee level, I don't see how that might…. I mean, there would just as likely, or more likely, not be any funds available.

Would the minister…? Does he or his ministry have any ability to influence the makeup of those advisory committees so that there could possibly be some funds made available in the interest of regional development?

Hon. T. Christensen: Again, I think the issue has been canvassed well in terms of the debate around the legislation. At the end of the day, those aren't trusts that are controlled by government; they're trusts that are controlled on a local basis.

The boards that get to make the decisions around where the funding will go will include first nations representation. I think that's critical in terms of having good advice at that board level when they are deciding on how the allocation of those funds should be structured and what sort of projects they wish to support.

S. Fraser: I agree that it's important. It's critical, I think, to have first nation representation on the boards. On the advisory level, the first nations have already requested seats at that level so that they could be involved with the…. The way I understand it, the old relationship, which is something we are trying to move beyond, involves consultation after the fact. I know we are all trying to get beyond that, just from reading the New Relationship document, which I happen to agree with.

So when a decision comes forward to a board, such as a trust like this — a new trust that is post–New Relationship document…. When a decision is to be made and there may be first nations representation at the end of the process, but there has been no first nations involvement through legislation at the advisory stage…. Again, to me that doesn't fly with the New Relationship document in a multitude of ways and in a multitude of places, whether it's from goals or mission statements and such. It seems to me to fly in the face of that. Is there any will or ability to include first nations at the advisory stage so that they can provide the advice, the knowledge necessary, to have a decision at the end of the day that involves the first nations from the get-go?

Hon. T. Christensen: Certainly, I take direction from the Chair in terms of Bills 6, 7 and 8. They've been debated in the House. They've been passed. I don't know if they've been proclaimed yet, but certainly the House has had an opportunity to debate them and vote on them and pass them.

At the end of the day, what's critical is that first nations are actually involved at the decision-making point. It is the board of each of the trusts that will make the decisions, as I understand it, around how funds are allocated. It's for that express reason that we want to ensure that there is first nations representation at that critical decision-making point.

S. Fraser: I do not mean to belabour the point, but throughout the New Relationship document there is reference in so many ways regarding the…. I'm not discussing the bills now; I'm just discussing the trusts that exist. Whether they've been ratified or not, I'm not sure. But they do not involve first nations at the advisory stage, which was a direct request of first nations to be involved at that….

There's a significant amount of money. There's $50 million involved with these trusts. So it's significantly more money available here on a one-shot deal than, for instance, the First Citizens trust, which is merely from the proceeds of the $70-odd million. It is quite a significant difference.

In an advisory sense, coming up with a role or position, an economic development proposal that involves in an inclusive way, which I think is what the new relationship is all about…. Again, without that advice at the very beginning, I find that first nations who've requested to be involved at the advisory stage do not feel that will include them in the decision-making process. The options won't be there to make a decision on because of that lack of inclusion at the get-go.

I won't belabour this. I've kind of hit a circle on this. It's not the minister's trust, so I understand that too. But it does come after the new-relationship agreement and these trusts, and they do not involve at the advisory level…. So I would urge the ministry to use whatever influence in the future to ensure that as funds are made available on a regional basis, that actually includes the first nations at the advisory level.

I guess I have no question associated with that, so I was probably just grandstanding. I apologize for that.

We have the document which the ministry staff was good enough to provide for me. It's the overview of the ministry, as laid out. I very much appreciate being provided with this in a timely manner. I have some questions, and I don't consider them critical questions — just for clarification.

There is a role to play for this ministry in relations and reconciliation. In the organizational chart, are there any numbers of people on the right-hand side that would be involved with intergovernmental relations to deal with some of the challenges that we've already sort of come up with — with other ministries, for instance? Do we have interministerial liaisons, if you will, to help other ministers or other ministries maybe help themselves along the way towards the new relationship? Are there any people like full-time-equivalents or anything like that reflected there?

Hon. T. Christensen: I guess the work of liaising with other ministries, the cross-ministerial work, really occurs at all levels, certainly at the deputy minister level.

My expectation is that the deputy minister is working with deputies across government in terms of specific initiatives in a line ministry, what implications that may have with first nations, what discussion has occurred with first nations around policy development in an area that will impact first nations. Really, it's, I guess, a pervasive theme through the FTEs that are within. The Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation is working with other ministries.

As specific initiatives develop or move forward in a particular ministry — for example, the first nations tourism strategy that the Ministry of Tourism, Sports and the Arts is responsible for — then in some cases we may appoint a specific point person within Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation to be working with staff in that other line ministry, but it's more done on a case-by-case basis. I guess the general approach, not to belabour this, is that we're looking cross-ministry right through the ministry.

S. Fraser: While I'm on the chart — and I want to reserve the right to come back to this just because I've only received this recently — it says: "Assistant deputy minister, aboriginal relations." We have "minus one." Or is that "one"? I'm sorry. It's the fourth from the bottom. It may just be "dash one," but if I could get clarification on that. It probably is, now that I look at it.

Hon. T. Christensen: We have one assistant deputy minister position that has yet to be filled, so we're trying to find the right person for that one.

There's a fiscal team of two full-time-equivalents, I take it, still to be transferred to the Ministry of Finance — still to be transferred, as in "that's imminent"? Will there be a void created by that here? If I could get some clarification on that, please.

Hon. T. Christensen: There are two FTEs that will be transferred to the Ministry of Finance, in terms of where in government those FTEs will exist. That's simply an organizational change based on where government felt the work could best be performed. Actually, certainly in my view, it's of considerable assistance to the work that the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation is doing, to have people who have ex-

perience in this ministry to now be working directly with the Ministry of Finance.

S. Fraser: For clarification, since the ministry is new — less than a year old — is this a part of the new team, the two full-time-equivalents for the fiscal team? Have these two individuals been there just from its inception?

Hon. T. Christensen: Those two positions would have been in the treaty negotiations office prior to the establishment of the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, and it's simply a matter of where within government overall was the best fit for those two FTEs.

S. Fraser: Would they still have the ability to provide services in that role through the Ministry of Finance? Or is that simply not necessary any longer?

Hon. T. Christensen: No, the services that those two FTEs will continue to provide remain very necessary. In essence, the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation will be the client of the Ministry of Finance for those services.

I opened with a quick question about intergovernmental relations, and I should have said interministerial relations. In dealing with the federal level of government — and I see that as becoming a part of the future, as we are seeing with the upcoming summit — we are certainly seeing a lot more profile to this issue of new relations and reconciliation even on a national level. Is there anything in the budget or in the makeup of staffing that helps to deal with what is likely to become the future in dealing with the federal government on these issues?

Hon. T. Christensen: Certainly, our relationship with the federal government remains critical in terms of aboriginal issues. That's not something new. For example, on the treaty negotiations front, obviously, those are tripartite negotiations where we maintain ongoing relationships with federal negotiators as well as with first nations negotiators. That work will continue to be done by individuals within the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation.

In terms of the aboriginal services side of the ministry, in terms of some of the direct programming and services we provide to aboriginal people in British Columbia, again, those are relationships that have existed with the federal government in terms of its responsibilities. We will continue that. In that regard, we tend to work closely with Intergovernmental Relations in terms of the work they do on an ongoing basis on a number of fronts with the federal government.

Following the question a little bit further: do we have any comparative numbers on what will be…? I know it spans…. When you talk about negotiations, obviously, it is a joint federal-provincial initiative, but as far as line items in the budget for…? Working the new relationship with the federal counterparts — is that something that is delineated in the budget, or is that just something that is sort of an all-pervasive theme?

Hon. T. Christensen: I think the member's description of it as being all-pervasive is probably the most appropriate one. Senior staff within the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation are in consistent contact and have ongoing working relationships with their federal counterparts. It is a critical component of this file — that provincial-federal interaction. As the member will know, British Columbia is co-chairing the upcoming first ministers meeting along with the federal government.

So that relationship right now is a very active one in terms of the preparation for the first ministers meeting and the simple fact that British Columbia and the Premier, in particular, have taken on a significant leadership role among the provinces in the lead-up to what I think we're all hopeful will be a very constructive meeting at the end of November.

S. Fraser: There's a lot of hope based on this upcoming summit, so I'm appreciative of the government and the Premier and the minister for hosting this and helping to organize and promote this important event. I'm hoping that with interests in that broader new relationship, even the critic for Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation will be given an invitation to the event.

I have a couple of questions regarding how, lastly, on this organizational chart…. It may be, again, another umbrella issue, but dealing with the municipal level and local governments, smaller communities, as we're seeing treaties getting closer towards settlement…. Traditional territories, of course, often encompass municipalities and communities, so that relationship is an important one. At some point, the new relationship and how that will play out on the ground, as we've touched on before, not just through the ministries but in municipalities, in local governments….

Are there any resources being allocated towards, say, capacity-building from a municipal point of view to help local governments understand their role in the new relationship? I think it's broader than just a provincial initiative. It's in the ten-year plan. I think we're looking at having relationship-building and joint ventures and such with local governments. Economic planning will be part of that. Is there anything in the budget that specifically deals with this?

Hon. T. Christensen: The member identifies, rightly so, that the new relationship does need to ultimately encompass local governments. It needs to encompass all levels of government and, really, relation-

ships beyond government if it's truly to be effective in the long term in terms of reconciling the interests of aboriginal British Columbians and non-aboriginal British Columbians.

We have, in terms of the treaty negotiation process, supported local governments on somewhat of an ad hoc basis, depending on the place at which particular negotiations have proceeded to and the need at that time. That has proven to be effective in terms of engaging local government and assisting local government to be engaged in the negotiation process.

In terms of the new relationship itself, the ministry certainly is available to local governments from an advice standpoint, in terms of advice we may provide to local governments who are attempting to develop effective relationships on a local level with their neighbouring first nations. We have staff within the ministry that are available for that purpose.

But part of the discussion that needs to evolve between the province and local governments, including first nations, is around how we can better support local governments who have the good intention of trying to develop those constructive relationships but are encountering questions or challenges in doing that, and similarly, assist first nations who want to bridge that divide that sometimes exists between a first nation and a local government.

On that front, as I said earlier, I was pleased at the approach that local governments who spoke to me at UBCM were taking in terms of being proactive in working with their neighbouring first nations. I'm looking forward to further dialogue with UBCM and some local governments on an individual basis as to how we can better support the development of those local relationships in an effective way.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. I approve of any form of outreach that can happen. UBCM is a good venue for that. I would encourage the ministry to promote the new relationship in a way…. It was created quite quietly for reasons that are beyond me, but I respect them, and I like the result. There is some misunderstanding sometimes about these things, and I think ignorance can cause some fear with some municipal councils and maybe some reluctance to embrace the new relationship too. So I appreciate the words of the minister.

I'm going to get back to a little more specific…. We touched on friendship centres, so I'll go back to that. Is the sole funding for friendship centres coming through the fund that we were discussing earlier? Is the First Citizens Fund the only provincial contribution to running these centres?

Hon. T. Christensen: Friendship centres derive their funding from a variety of sources. The funding that's available through the First Citizens Fund is directed to assisting with the cost of a program director for the friendship centres. It's my understanding that they then get a degree of operational funding from the federal government through Canadian Heritage.

My experience with friendship centres is that the vast majority of them, if not all of them, tend to contract with a range of government ministries for program delivery. In some cases they may be contracting with the Ministry of Children and Family Development around some of their programming, and in some cases they may have contracts with the Ministry of Health. There may be other ministries that are contracting for specific services that will be delivered through the friendship centre.

In terms of this ministry, the funding support for friendship centres is through that First Citizens Fund.

S. Fraser: For clarification, there is no line-item budget amount for sponsoring friendship centres. The reason I'm asking is that there's infrastructure in place with these centres, so they are kind of a natural fit for some of the new-relationship premises that certainly include specifically urban first nations issues and the like.

Considering that the New Relationship document is new and that this is the first budget with the new ministry…. I mean, there are people who believe, including myself, that the friendship centres would be a natural fit with moving forward with the new relationship — which would, of course, require additional resources. Are there any additional resources laid out here in the budget?

I know it's difficult because there was no stand-alone ministry before. It's hard to compare these things, so I'm mindful of that. But if I could get some indication.

Hon. T. Christensen: There's consistent funding through the First Citizens Fund, so it doesn't appear as a line item in the ministry operations. But through the First Citizens Fund those are dollars that are available year after year and continue to support program directors.

As I indicated, the other aspect — and this really does, I think, play to the new relationship — is that we do believe that friendship centres are an effective delivery mechanism for a number of government initiatives. That's why individual line ministries will be contracting with friendship centres in many cases for delivery of specific programs. That to me certainly embodies, really, the heart of the new relationship in many respects.

S. Fraser: Other urban centres, other urban initiatives for urban first nations — off-reserve first nations…. Is there budgeting for any other organizations or services specifically in the budget? If so, are these items a change from the previous consortium of budget items from different ministries?

Hon. T. Christensen: There isn't a series of ongoing year-over-year dollar commitments in terms of other

urban initiatives, but there are a number of initiatives that the government is involved in as those initiatives come forward. In some cases they're partnering with the federal government, and in some cases it's funding through a different ministry, through the province.

For example, there is a federal Urban Aboriginal Strategy at play in Vancouver and Prince George where the province has some involvement. There's the Vancouver agreement in terms of downtown Vancouver, where again the province has involvement, although not specifically through the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation.

We have a number of capacity development initiatives that have been funded through the aboriginal directorate over the course of the last year. There's an aboriginal technical capacity program that was delivered by the Centre for Sustainability in conjunction with an aboriginal steering group. There's an aboriginal employment partnership initiative that's been at work over the course of the last year. There was some funding to the B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres for development of mediation skills, so again, some one-time funding to build that capacity within friendship centres and try to assist in people developing those skills. There's a memorandum of understanding with the Métis Provincial Council, again, to assist in some of the work that they're doing.

So there's a host of smaller initiatives that are funded through Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, or that were funded through Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services previously and in some cases are funded through Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation now.

J. Horgan: I just have a quick question while we're on the subject for the minister, and that has to do with BladeRunners and the Access program, with respect to the downtown east side. I am quick to get to my feet, hon. Chair, because with 2010 looming, I'm wondering if priority is being given to using BladeRunners and Access to ensure there are employment opportunities on the downtown east side for aboriginal people.

Hon. T. Christensen: The BladeRunners program, although it certainly has a good number of aboriginal participants, isn't an aboriginal-exclusive program. It's actually not administered through Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. It continues to be administered, I believe, through Community Services, but it is my understanding that that program is continuing through this year.

Hon. T. Christensen: Access is actually federally funded through the aboriginal human resources development agreement, which I think in turn is funded through HRDC — I think it's HRSDC now. In the past there have been occasions on specific projects where the province may have partnered, depending on what the parameters are, but it is a federally funded program.

I guess where I'm going with this line of questioning is to 2010 and Olympic venues that will be required in the city of Vancouver. It strikes me that ACCESS, whether it be a federal program or not, and BladeRunners, whether it's wholly aboriginal youth or a majority of aboriginal youth, are ideal opportunities for your ministry and staff to actively promote job creation for first nations people in that urban setting.

So I encourage the minister to take that information. I know he's learning as he goes, and he's doing a fine job of it. These are two areas that I'm familiar with that seem right for some sort of a marriage with VANOC, and I encourage the minister to do that.

Hon. T. Christensen: I appreciate the member's comments. There is a range of programs, some of which are federally funded, some that are in the private sector that are providing some significant opportunities for aboriginal youth at this point. Certainly, we're trying to keep track of the ones that are out there and encourage those along and develop or provide whatever assistance we can in developing new initiatives, because as the member rightly points out, 2010 provides — perhaps it's a pun — a golden opportunity for all of us in terms of developing youth employment including aboriginal youth.

J. Horgan: I was going to let it be, but I will point out for the minister, just so his staff can refresh him on this later on, that GM Place, probably the premier venue in the city of Vancouver, was the first venue that BladeRunners was involved in. I think you can find that Mr. Griffiths and others who've been involved with the Olympic movement and involved with large-scale construction in Vancouver can attest to the importance of that program.

I thank the minister, and I'll turn the floor over to the member for Yale-Lillooet.

H. Lali: I have almost taken the lead of my fellow member to the right — forgetting to get permission before I talk. I should know better, having been here before.

I would like to, first of all, congratulate the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. I also see some staff here that I recognize from my past life as a government MLA. It's good to see you folks here again.

I'm going to just ask a couple of general questions before I get into something a little more specific. It's related to this whole issue of treaty-making in this province. Obviously, both aboriginal people and non-aboriginal people in British Columbia as well as the business community all feel that the greatest impediment to economic development in rural British Columbia is the unresolved issue of native land claims.

It's a big issue that for well over a century no government had wanted to tackle until Mike Harcourt became Premier of this province. He was very committed to this whole process with the Treaty Commission process that was set up. That was way back in '91-92 when he was first elected Premier. Since then it has evolved, and I agree with the sentiment that in terms of resource extraction or resource development in rural British Columbia, it is a big issue for not only rural British Columbia but all of British Columbia, and I think even Canada would benefit as a whole.

I wanted to put my two bits on the record to state that I am fully in support of treaty-making, and that the sooner and the faster we do it, I think the better it will be for all people concerned — aboriginal and non-aboriginal, as well as the business community in this province.

So we have those folks who are with the Assembly of First Nations and by and large are involved with the treaty process or believe in it. But then we also have those that are represented by the UBCIC, also known as sovereigntist bands. Within the constituency of Yale-Lillooet, we have 27 first nations bands. That's actually more than any other constituency in the province, and a majority of those bands are sovereigntist.

So I wanted to hear the minister's thoughts and also what the ministry's position is for the future in order to bring those bands that are represented by the UBCIC, the sovereigntist bands of first nations, to a table, if it's not the Treaty Commission process or something similar, but rather a process so that we can actually get on with this whole issue of resolving land claims.

Hon. T. Christensen: Certainly, I appreciate the member's comments around treaty-making and the importance of treaty-making to all British Columbia and, I would share the member's view, to all of Canada. It's long overdue that we make significant progress on treaty-making. I do want to assure the member that we remain fully committed to the treaty-making process going ahead, and we feel that we've made significant progress over the last few years in reaching five agreements-in-principle. There is certainly still some hard work to get to final treaty agreements, but I am one who is optimistic that we will see the first final agreements under the Treaty Commission process.

But the member is right that there are a number of first nations who have chosen, for a variety of reasons, to not involve themselves in the Treaty Commission process. It's equally important that we do find a means of working effectively with those first nations to allow those first nations to participate in the economy of British Columbia, to ensure that we're working in a manner that recognizes that those first nations have aboriginal rights and title interests that we need to be mindful of in terms of how the province moves forward. That really is some of the foundation behind the development of the new relationship and the new-relationship initiative, which is intended to be very broad-based and apply in respect of our relationship with all first nations, whether they are involved in the treaty negotiation process or whether they have chosen not to involve themselves in that process.

We recognize that simply because a first nation has chosen not to be involved in the treaty process that doesn't mean that the government's obligations are in any way different. We still have obligations to consult with those first nations around decisions that may be impacting their aboriginal rights and/or title interests. We need to find meaningful ways of doing that. That's why we're working with the First Nations Leadership Council, which is comprised of representatives from the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs as well as the First Nations Summit and the Assembly of First Nations. So this is very much intended to be a relationship with all first nations in British Columbia as we move forward.

I do want to just correct one small thing on the record. I think the member referred to the AFN as representing the first nations that are in the treaty process. It's actually the First Nations Summit. The AFN represents first nations in both UBCIC and the First Nations Summit.

I guess the importance from government's standpoint is that we're working with all three organizations primarily through the leadership council to really find a way that we can move forward in our relationship with all first nations — again, with the underlying goal that we enable first nations to share in the economic opportunities that exist in British Columbia; that we work with first nations in a manner that recognizes that aboriginal rights and title do exist in this province and they cannot be ignored; and that we must be respectful of those rights and find ways that we can reconcile the existence of aboriginal rights and title in British Columbia with the path forward that should benefit all British Columbians, aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike.

H. Lali: I would like to thank the hon. minister opposite for making that correction. We live in a world of acronyms, and I had my AFN and my FNS mixed up here, it's true. I want to thank the minister for pointing that out. So it's the First Nations Summit; that's correct.

It's quite refreshing to hear some of the views of the minister opposite. There's more of a tone of reconciliation and actually a desire to solve some of the long outstanding issues that exist between first nations in British Columbia and also the people of British Columbia. It's obviously a stark contrast to the last four years that we've seen.

Yes, there are a number of AIPs that are there, but at the same time, aboriginal people — almost to the person in my constituency, and also in the areas of southern British Columbia, in the Thompson-Okanagan area — have been telling me that they had not been pleased with the record of this Liberal government in the last four years. They felt that not only

were their issues not being dealt with, whether it was through the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, but rather, in all other areas of health and education as well…. Specifically, they were really upset with the fact that financial support for capacity-building was something that had been withdrawn.

So this $100 million that has been on the table has been greeted actually quite well in the aboriginal community, and it is, in my opinion, a big step, a first step, towards achieving the greater goal of treaty-making in this province. I just want to point out for the record that aboriginal people were not happy over the last four years but are actually now treating this new kind of an approach from the ministry, the minister and the government and hoping that it will start resolving some of those issues….

Again, in terms of dealing with those first nations which are not in the treaty process — rather, are lacking for some sort of a process — I was wondering if the minister could share some specific steps that are being taken to make sure that the issue of land claims, as it relates to sovereigntist bands, is going to be resolved over the long run. By specifics I mean: is there a specific assistant deputy minister or a deputy minister assigned with the task of finding a solution to this and working on a full-time basis with aboriginal people? Or is there a group from government, from within the ministry, who are assigned to do this? I'll wait for the minister's answer before I go on to something a little more specific.

Hon. T. Christensen: I'm not sure if the member was trying to bait me at all there with the first part of his comments, but I do need to respond, at least to some extent. You know, the member and I, I'm sure, will agree or will disagree on the progress that was made over the last four years, but I don't think it's any accident that we do have five agreements-in-principle now. It's worth noting that over 300 agreements between government and first nations were entered into over the course of the last five years on a number of economic fronts in terms of allowing or facilitating effective first nations involvement in forestry and, in some cases, in energy and mining. On a number of other fronts there were somewhere in the neighbourhood of 145 economic measures agreements that were specific to building capacity within first nations communities.

So there were a number of highlights over the last four years where individual first nations have actually made some significant progress in embracing the opportunity to be involved in the revival of British Columbia's economy. Certainly, we have the B.C. Rail first nations trust that a number of the first nations in the member's riding have an opportunity to participate in, in terms of looking for future economic development opportunities. There is work to be done, and I think we all recognize that. In many cases the work is long-term work, and the member has rightly identified one of the challenges around getting to a point of greater certainty on the land base with first nations that aren't participating in the Treaty Commission process.

I was at the annual general meeting for the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, I guess that was about two or three weeks ago, and really invited them to tell me and tell the leadership council and their representatives on leadership council how they believe they can effectively participate in decisions around land and resource use, because it's important that we get that input, and it's important that we get it in a meaningful way to ensure that we're effectively addressing issues of aboriginal rights and title when we're making land use decisions.

We have a number of — not necessarily initiatives, but specific, I guess — tables and discussions that arise from time to time with specific first nations as issues arise. So again, as the member will know, that with the St'át'imc, we have a protocol table there — ongoing discussions. Often, as I'm sure the member will concede, very difficult discussions. There's, unfortunately, no panacea in terms of finding a single answer or even a list of five answers that are going to get us to a simple solution in terms of certainty on the land base. Our commitment is to work through the leadership council with first nations to try and better define how we can effectively consult with first nations when we're making decisions in government and, when an obligation to accommodate an aboriginal right or title interest arises, how we can better do that.

For the first time ever we're trying to develop that framework in collaboration with first nations. I think we're all optimistic that in involving first nations in the discussion of how we should better work with you…. Rather than governments coming and saying, "Hey, have we got a deal for you," it's: "How can we better work with you?" We will get to the point of having a framework that is effective on the ground and does lead us to that sometimes elusive goal of greater certainty.

H. Lali: I'm glad that a number of AIPs were signed. Obviously, in order to have AIPs, you have to have a mechanism in place, a door has to open, and that was done by the previous NDP governments from 1991 to 2001, which allowed for those AIPs to actually become possible because they were already in…. Aboriginal bands were able to get into the process. There were a number of things that the minister listed, and it's a good thing that aboriginal people were able to move on an economic front.

But if you look at the ten years in the '90s, there were a number of things that the NDP had done at the time, not the least of which were the joint stewardship agreements, which I know the minister is familiar with — innovative forest practice agreements, a number of them made across the province where aboriginal people got access to timber. In the Merritt TSA alone, they ended up with 50 percent of the AIP uplift that occurred in the Merritt TSA. Access to FRBC money for silviculture projects. Access to timber via other bids, including the 5-percent takeback that we had in terms

of timber licence transfers. A number of those 5-percent takebacks are actually channelled through to aboriginal bands in those affected areas.

I guess, in terms of certainty…. The minister talked about certainty. Certainty is what business looks for in terms of investment, and certainty is not something that has been there in terms of this whole issue of land claims. As I say, it keeps arising, and it actually creates uncertainty where investment actually ends up taking off out of the province instead of coming in.

The referendum that was involved in terms of aboriginal land claims in the last four years was something that didn't provide certainty. It actually went the opposition — to provide uncertainty.

Specifically to the St'át'imc, as the hon. minister has mentioned, my question is…. The Cayoosh Creek ski resort proposal — or Melvin Creek, as it's also called; otherwise known as NGR ski resorts proposal — has been something that has been ongoing from the early '90s. The biggest impediment to that moving forward has been the fact that the aboriginal people are saying that it's on traditional territory and that since we don't have any mechanism in place to deal with the greater issue of land claims, they're not going to participate in that process in terms of the consultation that was needed. Al Raine and Nancy Greene had gone through the entire process, the environmental process, but where it obviously got stalled was in that area. Towards the end of the mandate when I was an MLA before, I tried to actually broker a process with Chief Garry John, the spokesperson for the first nations in that area, the government on the other side and also the private developer.

I would like to ask the minister — in other economic development initiatives where sovereigntist bands are not participating because they need and want, as they state, the greater issue of land claims to be solved in their traditional area — how the minister foresees actually dealing with that issue while at the same time the economic development issues can also move forward in a parallel way?

Hon. T. Christensen: The vehicle by which we believe we can get to a point of greater certainty, in terms of working with first nations that are not interested in being involved in the treaty process, is through the new relationship. We recognize that our obligations aren't contingent upon involvement in the treaty process. Our obligations are our legal obligations to consult with first nations whose rights and title may be impacted by the decisions that the government may make.

What we are trying to do is work through the First Nations Leadership Council to develop a framework around consultation and obligation that will provide an effective mechanism of working with all first nations, whether in the treaty process or otherwise, to deal with the obligation around consultation and to effectively engage those first nations in a discussion about the impacts that a particular project may have on their rights and title.

H. Lali: I thank the minister for those comments. As the MLA in Yale-Lillooet, I'd be more than happy to actually work with the minister and the minister's staff. I have, over the last 15 years, been able to build a really good rapport and trust with the folks up in the Lillooet area, the aboriginal people. I'd be more than willing to work with the minister, if he's willing, to set up some sort of process to deal with that issue of land claims. I think there is a process that could come out of this.

If the minister were to assign perhaps a senior-level public servant in his staff to have this as a file on their desk with a resource person who would be able to get out into the community and be on the ground to talk to the various leaders and chiefs within the St'át'imc Nation itself to actually start working out some on-the-ground solutions, to work out some of the on-the-ground problems that exist, so that in the long term we can get on with solving not only the land claim issue in that neck of the woods but also at the same time be able to move economic development projects forward. I'd be more than happy to assist the minister in that regard in building up a relationship with the aboriginal people and also the non-aboriginal people in that neck of the woods.

Hon. T. Christensen: We have an existing St'át'imc protocol table that is doing work. We have a chief negotiator from the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation that is active at that table. We are certainly trying to make progress there.

I would be happy to meet with the member separate and apart from these estimates to discuss how he believes that process can be helped along in terms of moving forward. I think all of us in this Legislature recognize that these are significant challenges in many cases, and we would all like to find effective means of moving forward to get to the point where we have much greater certainty on the land base, recognizing how important that is to both first nations and non–first nations communities in the province.

As I had mentioned earlier, the constituency of Yale-Lillooet has 27 bands. Up in the Merritt area, with the Nicola River and Nicola Valley area, we have five bands located there, as well, and then all throughout the canyon in the Hope area. Also, these resource development and economic development issues come up in each part of my riding. There's obviously the distinct part…. There's the Lillooet area — Lillooet-Lytton. There's also the Fraser Canyon–Hope area, which is separate from that, and then the Nicola Valley and also the Similkameen area out in the Princeton-Kootenays.

Without getting into any kind of details, other economic development issues exist in those areas as well. Again, I'd be more than happy to work with the minister to try to solve some of those.

I have some questions, actually, on the consultation process. One of the things that aboriginal people, whenever I travel through British Columbia, complain about is that there is no meaningful consultation as had existed in the 1990s. Obviously, the problem has been twofold. Number one is that they say aboriginal people are being excluded from any kind of formal consultation because of the way the Liberal government has set up this whole process in the last four years, where the aboriginal people are seen as an afterthought. When the project is almost ready to be given the go-ahead or rubber-stamped and is going to move forward and is in the form of a letter that the proponent sends out to the affected tribal council or first nation in the area, they are given a certain number of days — I think it's up to, maybe, 30 days — to come and respond to something like that. Otherwise, the project will go ahead.

That just isn't good enough. In order to have a proper consultation, it has to be done at the front end or somewhere in the middle and not at the tail end when something is ready to be approved by cabinet to go ahead.

The second part of that whole issue is the fact that aboriginal people do not have the capacity. In order to hire the experts who are going to be able to comment on all aspects of that proposal, whether it's an NGR type of a ski resort or Juliet Creek in the Merritt area or other projects…. It could be in forestry or highways or whatever. It could be in any one of those sectors. The fact is that they need to be able to do their homework. They need to analyze the plan that is going to be put forward for the project by the economic developer and be able to go out and hire the expertise who can actually comment on that before they can actually do meaningful kinds of comments on those kinds of projects.

Sending a letter two weeks or a month before the project is going to be approved just doesn't cut it. It's a slap in the face to the aboriginal people because it's not consultation, especially when funds had not been provided over the last four years for building capacity so that aboriginal people could meaningfully come to the table and actually do the proper consultation.

I would like the minister to commit that the whole process of consultation is not going to be done as an afterthought, but rather that aboriginal people would be treated on the same level as municipalities and regional districts and other levels of government are treated.

Hon. T. Christensen: I know that the member would like us all to believe that everything was perfect through the 1990s, that all the consultation obligations were being met and everybody was happy and that, all of a sudden, the world changed in 2001. But the member is dreaming if he believes that.

If we look at the leading legal cases that have helped us to try and define what is an appropriate consultation and accommodation process, those decisions were the Haida and Taku decisions in November of 2004. It takes a long time to get to the Supreme Court of Canada. Those decisions on the ground that led to those Supreme Court of Canada decisions that have given us direction on consultation and accommodation actually would have initially occurred during the 1990s.

Let's get beyond reliving in the past and recognize that as a House, as all members of the Legislature, we need to find an effective means of moving forward in this province, working with first nations, having effective means of consulting with first nations so that we can hear from first nations and recognize what their interests are when the province wishes to move forward with a project. That is the work we're undertaking now in the context of the new relationship.

For the first time ever, government is going out, working with the first nations leadership to try and figure out: how do we effectively undertake consultation? How do we effectively find ways that first nations can benefit from economic development in the province? How do we determine what's fair in terms of potential revenue-sharing from economic development in the province? How do we find employment opportunities for first nations people so that their communities can benefit from the economic progress that the province is making?

That is what the new relationship is fundamentally about. It is about how we work better with first nations to move forward. Certainly, I welcome the input of the members opposite in terms of helping us to move forward in that relationship.

I'll be the first to concede that we're going to make mistakes. We have a century and a half of having made mistakes on the first nations and aboriginal file in this province. We are making a sincere attempt to change the direction and move forward in a collaborative fashion, and we can stand here and play politics with it, or we can actually try to work together to find a more effective means of working with the first nations of British Columbia, with aboriginal people in British Columbia, so that we can find a better path forward and find true reconciliation between aboriginal and non-aboriginal British Columbians.

I agree with the member that there are certainly many examples from the past where government has been dismissive of first nations concerns, where the thought of consultation has been a passing thought that has sort of dawned on somebody at the last minute: "Wait a minute. There's a first nation that may be impacted. Perhaps we'd better go chat with them or" — worse yet — "just send a letter."

We are working with the First Nations Leadership Council to come up with a more effective consultation framework so that that's not the path forward, so that we find a way where it is early consultation with first nations, so that very early on we understand what their interests may be in a particular initiative, and so that

we can effectively work with them to try to address the initiatives and see if economic development or social policy can proceed in a way that better meets the needs of aboriginal British Columbians, while also meeting the needs of all British Columbians.

H. Lali: My issue is not with the present minister. I mean, the minister's words betray what the Liberal government has done in the last four years. The minister talks about not living in the past. I would like to point out that in the last four years what the Liberal government has been trying to do is take us back to the future. That's what they have done. And if this whole issue of holding a referendum on aboriginal rights, on minority rights, was not something that was taking us back to the 17th and 18th centuries, going back into the past, then I don't know what was.

In any one of those areas where we tried to move forward in the ten years when the NDP was in office, it was this Liberal government under this Premier which tried to take everything backwards. When you look across in every ministry in this province….

H. Lali: The Nisga'a, the hon. member mentions here. It was a treaty that was done under the NDP, under the Mike Harcourt and Glen Clark era.

I want to point out that it was this Liberal government that cut funding for aboriginal education. It was this Liberal government that cut funding for special education, which a lot of the aboriginal people were in need of. It was this Liberal government which actually denied a lot of those community grants for aboriginal organizations and aboriginal bands that the NDP had made access easier for during those years. Again, it was this Liberal government which had not recognized the right of aboriginal people to self-government — and a number of other things where they had gone backwards.

If the minister wants to talk about going back into the past, then I would say that it was the Liberal Party that has done that in the last four years. When they realized there was backlash in this last election and realized what had happened, it was only then that they started to change their tune, because all of those funding supports that the aboriginal people needed — to be able to actually look after the social and economic welfare of the people on reserve, where they actually ended up going backwards — was the funding that they needed in order to build capacity, to be able to deal with all of the issues that were coming forward onto their table. That support system was cut off, and aboriginal people felt that they were kneecapped.

All the minister has to do is go out there into those communities and talk to the aboriginal people and ask them to compare what the '90s were like to the first half of the new century. They'll tell him. He doesn't have to believe me. He can go out and talk to aboriginal people themselves and ask them how they feel.

Yes, it is refreshing to actually have this minister in this portfolio with the new title of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, and I believe that this minister is honest in his remarks that he wants to see change. My comments are not against this minister but rather against what his government has done in the last four years. The minister's words betray the record of the Liberal government in the last four years.

Again, I want to go back to this whole issue of consultation. What I have put here on the table in the previous question is what the aboriginal people in my riding, in my constituency, are telling me, which is that they have not had meaningful consultation.

I just want the minister to repeat that this ministry, under this minister, will make sure that there is adequate and meaningful consultation on economic development issues generated by third parties and that the aboriginal people will have their fair say.

Hon. T. Christensen: Certainly, the whole goal of the new relationship, as I've indicated a number of times, is to develop an effective consultation and accommodation framework. We believe we can't do that alone. We need to work with first nations to do that. I think it's worth noting that for the first time in my lifetime, essentially, we have all of the major first nations organizations in the province working together through the leadership council. That's a monumental step forward and provides a golden opportunity to make progress.

What we're certainly committed to doing is developing an effective means of doing what the member wants to see done, which is effective consultation with the first nations so that we have the opportunity to understand what the first nations interests are, to take those interests into account, to work with them in determining how we move forward to enable first nations to feel that they are an integral part of British Columbia, to truly reconcile the interests of first nations that have been ignored decade after decade, government after successive government in this province — do a 180 on that history and move forward in a more constructive fashion. That's certainly what we're committed to right across government, and we will move forward on that basis.

N. Simons: Hon. Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to ask the minister a few questions specifically related to the role of his ministry in the administration of child and family services. It's clear that in the core business area under Aboriginal Relations, your ministry will work with the Ministry of Children and Family Development "to develop a comprehensive strategy to better coordinate funding and support for aboriginal children's services." My first question: is that referring to on reserve and off reserve or simply off reserve?

Hon. T. Christensen: Thank you to the member for the question. Certainly the lead within the provincial government on children and family development is the

Ministry of Children and Family Development. We play a support role to the extent that we can assist in building those relationships with aboriginal communities. The MCFD has been hard at that work for the last few years.

In terms of the on-reserve/off-reserve challenge, it is a challenge. It is a jurisdictional challenge in many respects, as the federal government has direct responsibility for on reserve. What I can tell the member is that, in my discussions at a political level with the federal government, they are very interested in trying to get beyond this argument about on-reserve/off-reserve jurisdiction that unfortunately pervades aboriginal issues. We're trying to work together to ensure that services, whether they are on reserve or off reserve, are better integrated and actually serving people's needs, and to get away from that strict jurisdictional-responsibility argument, so that we'll find a way to better meet the needs of aboriginal people in the province, whether they are on reserve or off reserve.

I'm not pretending for a moment that there won't be some hurdles in breaking through some of those barriers, but certainly, I think, there's a sincere desire to get there, and I'm looking forward to further discussions with the federal government around that.

N. Simons: Thank you for the answer. Currently, are there any representatives of the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation working specifically with the Ministry for Children and Family Development?

Hon. T. Christensen: There are a number of working relationships, starting right at the deputy minister level, where my deputy works with the deputy minister of Children and Family Development in discussion around how the Ministry of Children and Family Development can move forward with the aboriginal communities. That same thing happens, also, at the director level where there may be various committees that individuals within my ministry will sit on to provide assistance.

There are no FTEs or individuals within Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation whose sole job is to work with the Ministry of Children and Family Development. They may do that as part of a broader range of services or responsibilities that they serve in the ministry.

N. Simons: Thank you for that answer. What I'm trying to establish is whether or not…. First of all, I'd like to say that for Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, probably at the core of that relationship are the policies, and government policies in particular, around nurturing and providing support to families and children. I think it's a core area within not just the minister's responsibility but in coordinating the dual response if it involves child and family services.

I note there has been some direct relationship between those two ministries. My question, then, is: if in fact there are no FTEs assigned to deal with the hugely complex funding arrangement — as the minister well knows — that exists, wouldn't that be an opportunity, a place, where potential cooperation could be enhanced by the establishment of some direct relationship?

Hon. T. Christensen: Certainly, my understanding is that there are employees, FTEs, within the Ministry of Children and Family Development that really would be dedicated solely to this work within that ministry. I guess my fear would be if I dedicated somebody solely to it, then MCFD might steal them away from me.

Again, the role of the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation really is one of support to the line ministries in the work that they are progressing with, with first nations. In many respects, the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation will have representation on a committee that has broad representation from a host of ministries. When we're looking at issues around children, you may have representatives there from Health and Education as well — and beyond that. So it really is more of an integrated approach, and if there are single employees that are responsible for that initiative who are within, as I understand it, the Ministry of Children and Family Development….

N. Simons: I wonder if the minister knows if there was a time when there was a separate ministry that dealt, as a ministry, with every other ministry and coordinated the services and legislation around services provided to aboriginal people.

Hon. T. Christensen: I'm not sure if there's been a point in time where we had in the provincial government a single ministry that was solely responsible for all of the provincial government's relations with aboriginal people. I certainly wouldn't want to go in that direction.

The goal here, and the new relationship is a critical part of it, is to be dealing with aboriginal people effectively across government and working with aboriginal people effectively across government so that it doesn't matter whether it's the Ministry of Education or the Ministry of Health or the Ministry of Forests or Energy and Mines — I'm not going to name them all — but that effective and meaningful relationships are developing between that ministry, the work it does and the aboriginal people that the work either impacts or who may benefit from that work.

Certainly, the goal is to develop an across-government, new relationship. The role of the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation is, in some respects, to try and ensure that there is coordination across government and how that's happening, to provide a supportive role to other ministries as they have questions around their relationship or their work with first nations.

I think we'd be going backwards and become quite ineffective if we tried to build government's relation-

ships with aboriginal people into, you know, a historical government silo where we then didn't effectively work with first nations and aboriginal people through other ministries.

N. Simons: I'm making a point really, maybe belabouring it a little bit, that there's a huge division within the Ministry of Children and Family Development that deals specifically with aboriginal communities, first nations communities — people who provide support services, whether it's in family violence, child welfare, early childhood education. It's a huge issue among the first nations communities.

That relationship, if in fact it has anything to do with reconciliation, should probably have some involvement of the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation because it is so fundamental and so at the core of the relationship between the various communities in the province. I would suggest that it would probably serve a useful purpose to pursue the fractured and historically inefficient relationship that currently exists between the three levels of government that are attempting to provide a fundamental service to children in the province.

If I have to form that in a question…. That reminds me of another television show. What is the ministry's view on…

Hon. T. Christensen: Certainly. I hope I am remembering the member's point clearly. You know, government sees the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation as playing a critical support role in the development of the relationship of MCFD has in the work it's doing with the broad aboriginal community, both on reserve and off reserve, around child protection, around ensuring that aboriginal people do have the opportunity to have effective involvement in the development of their children.

The member is correct in some of his early comments that perhaps there is no other area of government where we have the opportunity to better reach that goal of reconciliation than where we're dealing with aboriginal children. Unfortunately, the history in the province has not been a happy one. Too often the province has been engaged in taking aboriginal children away from aboriginal communities, divorcing those children from their heritage and their culture. We're sincerely trying to reverse that trend. That's not just happening starting yesterday; that's been a trend for a while.

Obviously, in doing that work, our primary consideration still needs to be the safety and welfare of those children, and that creates some real challenges as we go forward. The role I see the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations playing is a role of support.

The Ministry of Children and Family Development, who are the folks that have the expertise in child protection, need to be the ones that are leading that charge, and they need to be working very closely with aboriginal people and first nations communities around the province in doing that work. That's where I think this ministry and the staff in it who have expertise and knowledge about first nations can assist with some of that work.

N. Simons: I did want to end this on a positive note, to thank the minister for his answers to my questions, and I didn't have a chance to do that before. We had to go and refresh and sustain ourselves with food, so thank you and to the staff who have spent time working with me with that. I cede the floor.

D. MacKay: I apologize if my questions are going to be a little bit disjointed this evening, but I had an awful time finding information on this new ministry that has been created, given the fact that part of it was under the Ministry of the Attorney General before, and I had to go into his ministry and the treaty negotiations office as well as to CAWS to get some of the questions.

The questions that I do want to ask this evening are questions that I'm interested in. As well, I'd like to get some answers to the many phone calls and queries I've had from different parts of my riding as well as the Queen Charlotte Islands. People on the Queen Charlotte Islands have phoned me and asked me to ask a few questions about this new ministry.

With that, I would like to thank all the members of your staff that are with you this evening for the time that they have put into the ministry and the time they are going to spend tonight being able, hopefully, to answer some of the questions that I would like to put to you. I will try to be quick, because I understand there are a lot of people who would like to talk to you tonight.

With that, I wonder if the minister could tell me: how many bands are actually in the treaty process today, and how many are outside the process?

Hon. T. Christensen: I apologize for the delay. It seems like a simple question, and it's actually not a simple question. It depends on how you…. Well, here's the challenge. There are 198 bands in British Columbia recognized by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. About 70 percent of the overall bands are actually involved in the treaty negotiation process. The Treaty Commission counts those as 57 first nations, so a first

nation may include one or more bands. Those 57 first nations are negotiating at 47 different negotiation tables. That leaves about 30 percent of the bands in the province that are not involved in the treaty negotiation process — so approximately 60.

D. MacKay: I understand the difficulty in coming up with an exact number, so I appreciate that answer. I'm going to go to the ministry service plan, under the treaty negotiations office on page 7, where it talks about full-time-equivalents, direct FTEs, for negotiations. This is on page 7. It shows 81 FTEs, and then it goes down in the same box and includes treaty settlement implementation costs, and it shows seven. Are we talking apples and oranges here? To me, it looks like we've got 81 FTEs, and then we talk about seven for treaty settlement implementation costs.

Hon. T. Christensen: I suspect the member is looking at a previous year's service plan, as opposed to the one that was published in September, which brings everybody into the new Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. So I may not be able to exactly understand the question.

As I understand it, there were 88 FTEs that used to be dedicated to or classified as treaty negotiations. Those comprised FTEs that were directly involved in the actual treaty negotiations side of things, but it also included FTEs that were involved in treaty implementation. We don't include them any longer as part of treaty negotiations; that's my understanding.

D. MacKay: Again, I'm going to refer to that same sheet. I'm a bit confused here.

We talk about the treaty settlement implementation costs. In the year '04-05 we spent $16.967 million. In '05-06 it dropped down to $3.589 million, and then in '06-07 it drops down to $1.029 million and is ongoing. Is that the cost of the Nisga'a treaty, and if so, is it ongoing?

Hon. T. Christensen: Essentially, the figure drops quite dramatically from '04-05 to '05-06 because the number in '04-05 was a number that was based on an anticipated need for the acquisition of lands and treaty negotiations. Those funds actually didn't end up being needed, so the '05-06 number is a more up-to-date estimate of what is expected to be sufficient for Nisga'a capital transfer and other payments as well as some acquisition of land that may be required for treaty settlements. So if we find partway through the year that we're getting further along in some of the treaty negotiations than initially anticipated, we would need to go back to Treasury Board and seek additional dollars to proceed with that.

D. MacKay: To follow up on that, then, when we go out to '06-07 and '07-08, is the $1.029 million the actual cost to the province for Nisga'a? Where in this budget do I find what the cost is for Nisga'a?

Hon. T. Christensen: As we get out to '06-07 and '07-08, the $1.029 million is wholly for Nisga'a. One would expect that, again, as we go through this year, if we identify that we anticipate there will be additional land acquisition costs due to other treaties, those numbers would then adjust going forward.

Again, now, flipping over the page to accountability on page 8, we talk about accountability: being accessible and responsive to our partners and stakeholders, measuring and reporting on our performance at all levels. This is the province's responsibility to the taxpayers.

My question to the minister is: what accountability levels have we built into the treaty process for the native bands that are getting funds from the province to make sure that those moneys are being spent and spent wisely and all the band members are benefiting from those moneys? What accountability provisions have we provided for?

Hon. T. Christensen: There are a number of different levels of accountability, depending on what is happening. In terms of any ongoing funding through the fiscal financing arrangements, which are separate agreements, those agreements themselves would really provide contractual accountability in terms of the expectations around those dollars. In terms of the overall operation within the treaty and the governance within the treaty, the accountability is through the democratic process that's provided for election of the Nisga'a government under the terms of the treaty.

D. MacKay: I mention that because I'd like to refresh the minister's memory about the Wet'suwet'en treaty process that just recently saw two of the negotiators find themselves looking for different employment opportunities after having spent $10 million during the treaty process. I'm not really sure what they accomplished during that process while they were negotiating on behalf of the Wet'suwet'en. The Wet'suwet'en now have a $10 million liability, and I'm not sure what they have to show for it.

That was the reason I asked about what accountability provisions we have applied here. Is this money forgiven if they ask for it down the road, or is it, in fact, a loan that we expect to get back when the treaty is signed off?

Hon. T. Christensen: In terms of the ongoing negotiations, those are loans. They're administered through the B.C. Treaty Commission process. As the member likely knows, the B.C. Treaty Commission is vested with the responsibility of keeping the process in terms of the ongoing treaty negotiations and is responsible for administration of those loans. But it is a loan.

D. MacKay: Are there examples of where those loans have been forgiven, and do we expect that we

will forgive any of those loans in the future that are being provided as this process drags on and on and on?

Hon. T. Christensen: To be clear, the funding that's provided for negotiations to first nations is 80 percent loans, 20 percent grants, but it's all administered through the B.C. Treaty Commission process. The province shares in the grant portion, a 60-40 split with the federal government. The 80-percent loan portion is wholly federal funds, and certainly, it's our understanding that the federal government doesn't intend to forgive any part of those loans.

D. MacKay: I wonder if the minister could explain why the province is providing any money for the treaty process, given the fact that the natives are a federal responsibility. It was my understanding that the province was to provide land for treaty negotiations, so why is the province providing outright grants to this process?

Hon. T. Christensen: Since this process began — and granted, it was a number of years ago now — there was a 1993 cost-sharing memorandum of understanding between Canada and British Columbia with respect to the loans and the grants. It was under that memorandum of understanding that the province committed to sharing in the cost of the grants. Our share is 40 percent relevant to the federal government's 60 percent, and it's reflective of our ongoing commitment to the treaty negotiation process in terms of our continuing agreement with that memorandum of understanding.

D. MacKay: I'm looking at page 10 of the treaty negotiation service plan, and it talks about the percentage of B.C. Crown land covered by certainty agreements. On the bottom there are a couple of appendices that I want to read that cause me concern. They also have created some concern for people in the Queen Charlotte Islands in the northern part of the province as it relates to the land mass that's involved in the treaty process.

It says that, calculated as of March 31, 2004, the base figure for the amount of Crown land covered by certainty arrangements is 59.364 million hectares. It includes all certainty agreements across government. For 2004-2005, it is estimated that 14.57 percent of Crown land will be covered by Nisga'a treaty agreements-in-principle and operational certainty arrangements, and 18.75 percent will be covered by Treaty 8 for an overall total of 33.32 percent. Is that the total of the B.C. land mass that is tied up in those two treaties?

Hon. T. Christensen: We are having some difficulty following, because the member, I think, is working with the treaty negotiations office service plan from last February, and we're actually working with the September budget update, which is a whole new service plan. Certainly, we can get that to the member. It might make it easier for us to follow along.

In respect of the goal of increasing certainty and having certainty arrangements that apply in respect of Crown land, it includes agreements beyond treaties, so certainly it does include the Nisga'a treaty. It also includes Treaty 8 lands. It includes forest and range agreements and the extent to which those provide certainty over the land base. It includes land that is proposed for treaty through the agreements-in-principle. So there is a range of different agreements at play that provide additional certainty.

D. MacKay: As I stated at the start of my questions, I apologize because I'm going to be jumping around here, because I wasn't able to find the document that you are referring to. I am working from the TNO and the CAWS service plans. So I apologize for the confusion, but I still have to ask the question.

Given the percentage of land that was mentioned in the document that you don't have — 34 percent of Crown lands — causes me some concern, I want to know: are we talking about 34 percent of provincial Crown lands currently tied up under two treaties? Because we have got lots left.

Hon. T. Christensen: No, we're not. It is a range of other certainty tools that provide for that larger number.

D. MacKay: Again I apologize to the minister. Under the TNO office it talked about the negotiated agreements reflecting the referendum principles. Starting at '04-05 it shows that 100 percent of our work is going to be directed and in compliance with the referendum questions through '07-08. Can I ask the minister: was there any change in the process we are going through that will not comply 100-percent with the referendum principles that were signed-off on two years ago?

D. MacKay: I'm now going to refer to Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services. Again I apologize to the minister for this, but one of the questions I have that caught my attention under the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services deals with aboriginals. It talks about the number of aboriginal businesses created or sustained by the FCF business loan program. In '04-05 we talk about 150 in total. In '05-06 it's 150 in total, and it goes through '07-08 — 150 in total. Is this all that is being provided for through this time period — just 150 businesses? Or do they fluctuate year by year?

Hon. T. Christensen: No, those numbers are incremental, so the terms of the loans vary. But the intention in terms of the performance measure is to support an additional 150 businesses in each year.

It also talks at the bottom here about, "Forty percent of the businesses and jobs supported by the First Citizens Fund business loan program represent new business startups and new jobs," and it talks about: "The amount of money will actually vary from year to year, depending on the loan size." To me, a loan is money that's got to be paid back. I guess I'd like to ask the minister: are those loans in fact being repaid to the lenders?

Hon. T. Christensen: The program has been in place since 1988. In that time frame since then the default rate has been about 11 percent.

D. MacKay: Would 11 percent reflect the success rate of these businesses that the funding is being provided for? What is the success rate of those businesses?

Hon. T. Christensen: Eighty-nine percent of the businesses have successfully paid out the loan. I'm not sure if the member's looking for something beyond that.

D. MacKay: No, what I am looking for is accountability for the money that's being provided to these startup businesses. I just want to get some idea of how successful the businesses are — is the money being well spent? If the minister is telling me…. I think you said 89 or 90 percent. That, to me, would indicate it has been a success, and I'm pleased to hear that.

Now I'm going to jump around to the part of the ministry you have been charged with, and that is the consult and accommodate. I would refresh your memory on the Taku River Tlingit decision from the Supreme Court of Canada. There was no accommodation or compensation required. The Supreme Court of Canada said that the province had in fact consulted with the Taku River and dismissed their action. However, it was different for the Haida.

Now I'm going to take you to the Queen Charlotte Islands because this is where I'm getting the questions from. Does the minister have any idea how much land is actually tied up in federal parks on the Queen Charlotte Islands? We're finding more and more land is being removed from the forest industry over there. Soon there is not going to be a forest industry left on the island because more and more trees and land mass are being put into protected areas, and soon the forest industry as we know it on the Queen Charlotte Islands is going to cease to exist. I wonder if the minister has any thoughts on what's happening on the Queen Charlotte Islands as far as the forest industry is concerned.

I do know that a lot of the natives over there actually make their livelihood from the forest industry, and we have one particular group that seems to want to capture more and more land into protected area, which basically removes what little land there was left for harvesting wood. It removes it from the land base as well, given the massive federal parks we have there. I wonder if you would care to comment on that?

Hon. T. Christensen: As the member knows, there is a host of challenges in terms of the Queen Charlotte Islands. That is nothing new, quite frankly. We are involved in discussions with the Haida to try and ensure that we are meeting the province's consultation obligations and determining what obligations may exist in respect of accommodation, but it is fair to say that there are significant competing interests at play on the Queen Charlotte Islands.

We are in consistent and regular discussions with the Ministry of Forests, and they're certainly well involved in the ongoing discussions around land use on the Queen Charlotte Islands and how we can move forward to try and bring a greater degree of certainty for everybody that lives and works there.

D. MacKay: I would just like to preface my next comment about the fact that the ministry staff in mining and forestry, independent power production, the people that are involved in those do a great…. The ministry staff does a great job of consulting with the native bands in those areas that are looking to expand employment opportunities, not just for the people in the lower mainland, but more particularly for those native bands that are placed in these remote parts of our province. We are finally getting some employment opportunities out there for them to get them out of that 90 to 95 percent unemployment rate, and we do a great job of consulting with them.

There are some roadblocks that are put up quite often. It delays things almost to the point where I sometimes get the impression they actually have a veto power over the province as we develop public policy to allow development to take place throughout our province. I would like to ask the minister what native bands actually have traditional territory in the greater Vancouver area? How many bands are involved and what bands are they in the greater Vancouver area, if you could just give me a couple of names?

Hon. T. Christensen: I do want to preface this by saying it is not an exhaustive list, but just off the tops of our heads certainly there are a number of first nations in the lower mainland: Musqueam First Nation; the Tsleil-Waututh, sometimes known as the Burrard band; Squamish First Nation; Tsawwassen First Nation; the Katzie First Nation; the Kwikwetlem First Nation. Those are a number of them.

D. MacKay: That leads me to my next question. Given the fact that, when any development takes place in northern British Columbia, it's mandatory that we consult and accommodate and compensate where necessary, what accommodation and what consultation takes place in the greater Vancouver area whenever we

build a new highrise, whenever we expand the Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre? What consultation and what accommodation were made with the native bands in the Greater Vancouver area as we see these developments take place?

Hon. T. Christensen: The obligation to consult arises in respect of Crown lands. The practical reality in the lower mainland is that there aren't significant Crown lands. Where there are Crown lands, though, we do clearly have an obligation to consult, and we have a number of recent court decisions reinforcing that. The Musqueam First Nation, on at least two occasions that come immediately to mind, has been successful in arguing that the government has failed to fully meet its obligations to consult and accommodate, where the courts have referred the government back to working with the Musqueam to try and come to terms. We're working hard at that. If that fails, the courts have put time limits in place where we'll find ourselves back before them, but we are working hard to avoid that.

There are also examples where first nations in the lower mainland have entered into agreements and have been accommodated in respect of their rights-and-title interest. With the Tsawwassen, for example, there's a very significant agreement between the port authority and Tsawwassen — the Roberts Bank agreement. Certainly those obligations arise. In an urban context they are perhaps not as obvious and frequent, but there's no question that the obligation still exists there.

D. MacKay: I have to question that last statement just somewhat. Living in rural British Columbia, I'm aware of several instances where private property was in fact subject to consultation and accommodation, where people who owned private property sought to have zoning bylaws changed, tried to sell private property within the Gitxsan traditional territory, and it involved consultation with the native band.

What you are telling me is that on the lower mainland it is not necessary to consult or accommodate if it's private land; however, there have been instances in northern British Columbia where that is not the case. If it's private land, they've actually had to consult with the native bands to change a zoning bylaw for private property. That's the reason I bring that up. I wonder if the minister is familiar with any of those cases?

Hon. T. Christensen: No, I'm not familiar with any of those cases, so if the member can provide additional details to my office, I'm happy to look at that and try to figure out what is happening.

D. MacKay: I take it, then, from that answer that if I run into that problem again, I can phone ministry staff, and the issue will be resolved. I'm hoping it will be resolved quickly, because it has delayed a number of projects in my riding.

I'd like to just ask you about the First Citizens Fund. What is the value of the First Citizens Fund today in dollars? And what is the process for native bands to access funds through the First Citizens Fund?

Hon. T. Christensen: The current balance of the First Citizens Fund is $72.359 million. As the member likely knows, we don't spend the principal of the fund. It is the interest from the fund that is spent on an annual basis. That's budgeted this year at $4.2 million.

That funding is distributed to a number of programs, and it is those programs that are administered by a number of different aboriginal organizations, which individual aboriginal groups or first nations would apply to, to access the funding. For example, there's a business loan program. There's the friendship centre program; the student bursary program; the elders transportation program; and the First Peoples Heritage, Language and Culture Council, which administers aboriginal language programs.

D. MacKay: For the information of those waiting to ask questions, I have just a couple more, and I'll be done.

The First Citizens Fund. I wonder if the minister could tell me if Nisga'a has access to that fund?

Hon. T. Christensen: As a general rule, Nisga'a has access to any provincial programs, except those that are expressly funded through a fiscal financing agreement that's in place with them pursuant to the treaty. If it's already covered by the treaty, then they're precluded from participating, but otherwise, they can apply to funds of general application for aboriginal groups.

D. MacKay: That begs the question, then, minister, of the fact that Nisga'a has a treaty. They are now an independent nation within British Columbia. We've provided them with forest lands so they can be self-sustaining. They have access to the fishing in the river. A lot of them are commercial fishermen. They are now an independent nation.

Is the province granting them access to the First Citizens Fund, which is designed to help those native bands through some employment opportunities? Why do we allow Nisga'a access to this fund?

Hon. T. Christensen: The programs that are funded through the First Citizens Fund have been designed as programs of general application for aboriginal people in British Columbia. There isn't, at a practical level, a significant uptake in terms of the Nisga'a. Similarly, those first nations that are parties to the Douglas treaties or to Treaty 8 can also apply for that funding. It's intended to be funding of general application available for aboriginal peoples in the province.

D. MacKay: I have two questions, and I'll be finished. I want to ask the minister about roadblocks and blockades of developments taking place in northern

British Columbia and the purpose of them. The province has a process in place to provide for development. It's a rather lengthy, onerous process for companies to proceed with development. We issue all the permits to the proponent, the developer, and then we have roadblocks set up by some people who are unhappy with development that is taking place and providing employment opportunities for them.

You may not be able to answer this, but why is it we always ask the proponent to go to court for an injunction and an enforcement order, when in fact the province is the one that's issuing the permits in the first place, telling all these developers: "This is your opportunity to go develop the property. However, there's a catch. You may run into some roadblocks"? If we as a province don't start doing something on that issue, we're going to see the developers leave our province, and they're going to go elsewhere with their money to develop employment opportunities, particularly in these remote parts of the province. I wonder if the minister would care to comment on that?

Hon. T. Christensen: I recognize the member's frustration and the frustration that the people in different parts of the province face when blockades are in place. I'm not going to hazard an answer to the member's question. I think it is better directed to the Attorney General, who will have legal staff with him, presumably, to provide an accurate answer at the time he's in estimates, because there are a number of factors at play.

D. MacKay: Time precludes me from carrying on my discussion with the minister. I would again like to thank the minister and the staff for their patience and forbearance as I waded through. I look forward to this new supplement that the minister spoke about, so I don't have to go through this exercise as I just did.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the time, and thank you to the opposition members for allowing me to butt in.

S. Fraser: I'm going to touch on an issue that came up before our break. The minister mentioned some legal precedence — Haida, Taku — that's been mentioned a few times during the course of these estimates. I have tried to count the number of legal cases that are before the courts right now, and I think it's around the same number of treaties we have that are at about level four, agreement-in-principle — somewhere around 40.

I know that the government and the Premier have made statements around trying to get out of this cycle of endless litigation. I am a firm believer in those words. Can the minister confirm my numbers? Do we have that? If I'm close, that's good enough. Then I'll have further questioning on that.

Hon. T. Christensen: I'd ask the member to try and direct the question to the Attorney General. He'll be much more capable of providing an accurate answer to it.

S. Fraser: I shall do that. But regardless, there are quite a few cases before the courts, as we speak, regarding Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. The Premier has made comments about trying to deal with that. Are there resources being put forward in this budget from this ministry to help get out of the endless cycle of litigation?

Hon. T. Christensen: There's no question that the goal of the work we're doing with first nations in the development of the new relationship is to try and move from what has been a history of conflict to one where we find better ways of trying to deal with points where we disagree, and ideally, to find more points where we agree and can find a common path forward. That's part and parcel of the new relationship.

I think we'd be naïve if we expected that we're going to have sort of that glorious day where we don't face lawsuits at all. There will always be questions, and there will always be very legitimate questions that we need the assistance of the courts in answering. Our goal is to reduce that conflict and the litigation that often results from conflict, through the overall thrust of developing a new relationship and getting to the point where first nations aren't going to court to file a statement of claim that they have not been consulted, because they're satisfied that they have been effectively consulted.

S. Fraser: Thank you for the answer, minister. With some of the court decisions that go back to, say, Delgamuukw, these decisions have shown that the courts have agreed that there is an intrinsic right — that there has been no settlement either through historical treaty or through a conquering, if you will. Legally, these are holes in the law, and the ownership of the land resources is up in the air, and that of course brings a certain urgency to settling treaties.

Lots of times the cases seem…. Individual cases have to go back to court without recognizing the precedent that's set by the original case, like in the case of Delgamuukw. We've seen that happen a number of times. Is that something we are going to see an end to?

Will the minister…? Again, it's not a legal question, really. It is a legal question, but in this ministry's goals, it seems to me, that doesn't fit in, because litigation and court action is very expensive, and it's very difficult for those resources to be made available. First nations have a lot of expenses dealing with treaty and a number of other issues that are inequities in their communities, so having to deal with the horrendous costs of litigation over and over again seems counter to a new relationship.

Hon. T. Christensen: As I indicated, the goal is to try and avoid litigation wherever possible. What I think we've seen over the course of the last decade is — certainly starting with Delgamuukw and then subsequent decisions, most recently in terms of the Haida and Taku decisions and even the Marshall decision from back east — each time the Supreme Court of Canada makes a decision, they provide a little bit more

guidance in terms of the legal relationship that exists for first nations and other aboriginal peoples in Canada, and certainly in British Columbia.

What we are embarked upon is a path where we're trying to actually better define those relationships, through discussions with first nations to better clarify our obligations to consult and accommodate. We know we have those obligations by virtue of the Haida and Taku Tlingit decisions, but even the best court decision is still specific to the facts that are before the court and has room for argument when you get another set of facts.

What I'm hopeful of in the development of the new relationship is that we can actually have those discussions with first nations so that we don't have to rely on that lengthy, expensive and adversarial process that has too often been relied on in order to bring clarity to the relationship. If we can do it through discussion and collaboration, where we're recognizing what our common interests are and where we're working through the points on which we disagree, I think we're all better off, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal British Columbians.

There are times when clarification of the courts is necessary from all sides, or from either side, in a case. Am I correct when I have been told that if a nation takes the province to court on an issue even as basic as their own recognition of them as a first nation, which happens, is that a…? Does that then preclude ongoing, continuing negotiations? Is the occurrence of a court case the…? Is it the practice, then, to cease negotiations?

Hon. T. Christensen: The province hasn't adopted a hard-and-fast rule in terms of saying: "If you litigate, we're not going to talk anymore." Certainly, the preference is to avoid litigation and focus on negotiation. Typically, if we continue to believe there is room to negotiate to resolve disagreements, we continue to negotiate.

S. Fraser: Just for clarification, then, am I correct in saying it's not the policy of government to cease negotiations if a first nation enters into a legal situation with the province?

Hon. T. Christensen: Again, it's not a hard-and-fast policy. There's no question, though, that it creates significant challenges around the negotiation table if there's litigation going on. It really limits what we can talk about at the negotiation table for fear that it's going to impact the litigation in terms of if they're with-prejudice discussions. Plus, it's also complicated by the position of the federal government. They do take the position that if there's litigation initiated, the negotiations won't continue.

Obviously, in many of these issues, it truly is a tripartite negotiation between a first nation, Canada and the province. So if Canada is not participating, there's not really significant progress that can be made.

S. Fraser: In a case where there's a legal decision made, the courts come to a decision — hypothetical situation — and the province appeals the decision, which brings it back into the courts. However, it has been brought back into the court this time not by a first nation but by the province. Would that change the status of that situation? If government, in a tripartite manner…. If the provincial and federal government decided to cease negotiations because of an ongoing court case, and then government — provincial or federal — decided to appeal that decision, would that continue to preclude discussions in treaty negotiations?

Hon. T. Christensen: It's going to depend on the subject matter of the appeal. Certainly, to the extent that we can be working with a first nation…. We recognize that there are points of law that may arise where, on balance, the government is concerned about the application of a particular decision across government, or the precedent it sets may not have even been contemplated by the parties that were arguing it to begin with. When the Attorney General's ministry reviews lower court decisions, it has to sort of apply a broad range of considerations before the decision to appeal.

If we can go forward and work with a first nation to resolve some of the issues that we may have disagreed upon and, at the same time, the appeal can go forward on those points of law, then certainly, we're going to try and work with that first nation. Always our preference is to be working with first nations and not really be sidetracked by the fact that a court appeal has been launched. In terms of the federal government's position, I can't really speak for them.

I'll just take that a little bit further. We touched on the Attorney General's role here. There is a role as indicated in the budget in the service plan. Under the "Executive and support services," it says: "Some core support services are also provided by the…Attorney General shared services." Can the minister or the staff let me know just which ones those are, which core support services are also provided by the AG?

Hon. T. Christensen: Those are services like administrative support around freedom of information, around human resources management. They're not the core functions of the Attorney General's ministry. They're truly sort of shared administrative supports that all ministries need in one form or another. It's simply an efficiency that we're relying on folks within the Attorney General to help us with that rather than having additional FTEs to do that in Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation.

S. Fraser: Further to that, then, would I be correct in saying that those core services wouldn't be reflected in the budget for Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation? If not, would they be reflected in the budget of the AG, or is that a question for the AG?

Hon. T. Christensen: We have $359,000 in our budget to cross-transfer to the Ministry of Attorney General for that support. I should be clear. That doesn't include legal services that the Attorney General may provide to the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. Those we have to pay for separately. We'd like to get them all in one bundle, but apparently that's a no-go. They operate much like a law firm in that regard.

S. Fraser: For the sake of estimates, I'd like that to be easier. One-stop shopping would be good.

I, myself, am going to take a little sit-down because some other MLAs would like to ask some questions. I know we're running short of time. I apologize if I'm jumping a bit, because I'm having to do some severe editing based on a scheduling problem here. I apologize for that, and I will be back up in a few minutes.

G. Coons: Staff and minister, thank you for being here. Thank you for allowing me a couple of brief questions.

As the hon. member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine came through with the Haida situation, I just have a couple of comments or questions on that. Obviously, there's a lot of interest in the Haida negotiations by all islanders on and off the islands, as we have seen. A key cornerstone in any consultation in a protocol agreement is a sharing of information. Good-quality information is fundamental to making good-quality decisions. Does the government or the ministry have a consultation protocol agreement framework that they're working with?

Hon. T. Christensen: In respect of Haida, we don't have a well-developed, pre-existing framework that we're following in terms of those negotiations. A significant part of the reason for that is that we did have in place the consultation policy developed in 2002.

The Haida and Taku River Tlingit decisions of November 2004 from the Supreme Court of Canada raised a number of questions for government around that consultation policy. It's probably fair to say that we've used that as a bit of a base but that we've recognized in our discussions with Haida that we need to go further in terms of the extent of the consultation and in terms of trying to identify the interests at play there and how we move forward.

G. Coons: Realizing that the Supreme Court decision is grounded in the concept of honouring of the Crown, I can see that it would be difficult to initiate any negotiations or discussions when there isn't an agreement or a framework or something in writing that you can work with or that people can actually get hold of.

I'm just wondering: is there anything out there? You said that perhaps you were looking at a framework from 2002. Since the court decision, I think that's changed quite a bit with the accommodation and consultation that's necessary. I'm just wondering if the government, at this point in time, is feeling that they are reaching the expected levels of the Supreme Court ruling as far as consultation and accommodation are concerned.

Hon. T. Christensen: Certainly, government is doing its best, and all ministries are doing their best, to meet what we believe to be our legal obligations in terms of consultation and accommodation. What we're trying to do over all, separate and apart from what's going on day to day, is to work on the development of an improved consultation and accommodation framework within the new-relationship discussions.

That, of course, is work that's being done collaboratively with the First Nations Leadership Council. My expectation and government's expectation is that by working on development of a consultation and accommodation framework with the first nations leadership, we'll end up with a much more effective consultation framework.

The challenge, obviously, day to day, is that while you are doing that work, the world doesn't stop. There's still a need, on a day-to-day basis, for government to function, for individual line ministries to be making decisions. They are trying to do that in a manner that would meet any strict legal test around consultation at the same time that we're truly trying to find a better way forward, in collaboration with first nations.

G. Coons: Thank you, minister and staff. Being from the North Coast, with a high first nations population, I look forward to a close relationship with yourself and the staff in years to come.

B. Simpson: I would like to pursue a line of questioning around the New Relationship document itself. The first question is: who actually owns that document in terms of leading it forward?

Hon. T. Christensen: What the New Relationship document really provides is a starting point for further discussion. I know it's been referred to as an agreement. Some might think it's something like a contract. That certainly wasn't the intent. It's a document that really provides a foundation for the further discussions we're having with the leadership council, recognizing that there's a broad host of issues there that are new, that are complex and that really deserve to be fleshed out in greater detail before we really know how this relationship is going to work from a practical sense.

As we sit down and are doing the work with the First Nations Leadership Council, the New Relationship document becomes a reference point around those discussions to help inform them. The important work is

B. Simpson: I'll pursue that answer, but my question was, more specifically, who leads those discussions? What agency or agent actually owns the New Relationship document as a document and actually facilitates and leads those discussions?

Hon. T. Christensen: I'm not sure I'd attribute ownership. It's a shared document between the first nations leadership council, which is made up of the Assembly of First Nations, the First Nations Summit and the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, and the provincial government. The leadership council and representatives from the province together make up a management committee that is working on fleshing out the ideas that are contained within the document itself. I hope that addresses the member's question.

B. Simpson: Sounds like management by committee, and sometimes when you get management by committee, things fall off the table. If I can be more specific, what I'm trying to get at is that somebody somewhere must be sitting and saying: "This is what we wanted to accomplish. Are we on track or off track? Are we getting there?" In your service plan it's not sort of a founding document or a reference point. Your metrics don't include the New Relationship document, so where is that oversight function, if that is, as you've indicated, the starting point for discussion? I'd like to explore that starting-point issue shortly. But that whole question of where the oversight function is on whether you're tracking on this particular definition of a new relationship….

Hon. T. Christensen: Within government, the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation is responsible for moving the discussion forward. But it's not sort of a traditional government approach where we will do a body of work, then say to the first nations: "Here you are. This is what we're going to do."

It's a difficult process, and I appreciate the member's comments that managing by committee is difficult. To some extent it is a back-and-forth discussion at the management committee level, recognizing that we want this, as best we can, to be collaborative with the first nations leadership and to explore with them what they think some of the words in the New Relationship document mean once you try to get them down to a practical level, and what the implications of their understanding then are to government.

The good part of the discussion is really one of trying to better understand where first nations are coming from when they look at what they think government should be doing around consultation, for example, versus hopefully our being able to impart to first nations a better understanding of some of our limitations in that regard in terms of allowing a project to — not allowing but, you know, being an economic climate where investors are going to say it's worth coming and looking at doing a project….

B. Simpson: The minister said that it shouldn't be looked at as a contract. I want to paraphrase what he said: that it is more of a living document, a statement of intent, something that is going to be iterative as you have these ongoing discussions. I wonder if the minister could suggest what he thinks first nations look upon this document as? Are they looking upon it as a contract in which the government is binding itself to some intended outcomes?

Hon. T. Christensen: Certainly, it's probably fair to say that individual first nations and, to some extent, individual people within those first nations are going to look at the document differently, but in general terms, I think that first nations see it as the starting point to the discussion. One of the challenges is that there are terms or concepts within the document that may take on a wide variety of definitions or meanings, and part of the discussion is to try and bring some practical application to certain terms.

That's very much the work that is ongoing. It's very much a part of the need for all parties at the management committee to better understand where the other is coming from in terms of moving it forward. So it's very much a living document, and it's certainly one that I think will ultimately be defined by some practical applications on the ground where we're developing, on perhaps a case-by-case basis to some extent, more collaborative and meaningful working relationships with first nations. That working relationship itself can help to actually define the overall direction of the new relationship.

B. Simpson: I think the minister is right: different first nations are going to take this differently. But my assessment, certainly from the southern interior, northern interior and coastal first nations, is that once you come down to the band level and, in some cases, the tribal council level, they are looking at it as more of a fixed document with some marching orders, particularly since embedded in it is an action plan.

To have an iterative document that has, I think, a seven-point action plan, that is kind of a hold-myself-to-account, let alone this committee — right? So again, just in terms of moving forward with this, if this is an umbrella document that sits above this new ministry's service plan, I would caution that maybe some work needs to be done around the band and tribal council levels on clearly understanding the nature of this document, because it will cause confusion.

I will give you a case in point. I know that one of the members has already questioned the minister on litigation, and I don't want to get into that whole legal morass that exists there, but a case in point is the litigation around forest and range agreements. We do have a decision calling the forest and range agreement, in one particular case, unconstitutional. The individuals in-

volved in that have referenced the New Relationship document which has a specific action plan item that says those will come under review. They are beginning to reference it as something that is done.

So my question to the minister, given that long-winded context, is: in those circumstances, does this new ministry and the minister intend to play a proactive role in engaging in the kinds of discussions around when a line ministry is acting what appears to be out of step with the New Relationship document? Will this ministry be a go-to ministry that first nations can go to and say: "Hang on a second. We need another champion in the government to go and look at this"?

Hon. T. Christensen: I don't want to leave the member — or anybody that might review the transcript or be so bored tonight that they're watching this — with the impression that we don't put significant value on the document. It certainly is a living document, but it is sort of a foundational starting point. To the extent that there are a number of points identified as an action plan, those are things that we're actively working on. They were identified as items that we agreed needed to be worked upon if we were going to move forward over all with the new relationship. I do want to be clear on that.

In terms of the role of this ministry with respect to government over all, certainly the intent is to ensure that as we are able to bring greater definition to the new relationship — for example, as we're, hopefully, able to come to some agreement with first nations leadership around what is an effective consultation and accommodation framework — that that will be embraced by all ministers and that it will be an approach that is adopted governmentwide and that those new relationships will exist or will evolve between first nations and the line ministries.

The role that I see for the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations in that is one of really assisting in that discussion within ministries. In terms of first nations needing a sort of go-to ministry if they have concerns, to some extent this ministry, by default if nothing else, will play that role. But certainly the first point of contact for first nations should always be the line ministry that they're dealing with. It's not a ministry initiative; it is a government initiative to move forward with an improved and new relationship with first nations.

B. Simpson: Unfortunately, you've taken me full cycle because of the language you are using. If I was a first nations representative sitting here, and I heard the words "hopefully will be adopted by other ministries," and "hopefully will be applied by other ministries," that wouldn't give me a whole lot of comfort that we're in a new relationship. What it would give me is some nice words on a piece of paper, and I don't know who the heck is championing it in government. Normally, if you are going to do something new, you have a definitive champion who is driving it and who's going to make sure that it's not "hopefully," but it's a "thou shalt be done." My sense, again, with respect to the minister, is there is a growing expectation that that's what should be happening and that's where it should be going.

The other thing that I would suggest is the minister is correct that, by default, the ministry may be first point of contact. But what's happening just now of course — and it's in a transition phase, and it's fully understandable — is that they're being pushed back to the line ministries. So, effectively, they're coming and they're saying, "But hang on. No, that's a line ministry function." In the case of forest and range agreements, then, that's a line function. You've got to go and deal with the Ministry of Forests and Range, where for the first nations community, the Ministry of Forests and Range is the problem.

They're looking for someone to go and say: "Here's the new relationship. That new relationship says we're going to have different ways of dealing with these kinds of things."

Where do I go? Well, I can go back to the Ministry of Forests and Range, which isn't abiding by it. Again, I think the minister's statements suggest why I was asking the questions in the first place. I'm wondering if the minister sees that as a potential problem, and what might be done about it.

Hon. T. Christensen: I guess I need to be more careful in what I say. As we bring definition to the new relationship in the work we are doing, decisions will be made by government as to whether or not government is going to adopt a proposed consultation and accommodation framework. Certainly, I fully expect that it will be the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation that brings forward within government any proposed change, but it will be government that chooses whether or not to pursue a particular path and adopt my recommendation as minister. At such point that the government adopts it, it will be government policy. It will become part of my job to ensure that it is in fact being applied on a consistent basis.

The member rightfully points out and acknowledges that we are in this difficult transition period where we have, in some cases, existing statutes and regulations that require certain things to be done by statutory decision-makers. That may, arguably, come into conflict with some of the vision, at least, that's set out within the New Relationship document. We're working hard to try and reconcile existing policy and advance the work of the new relationship so that we can then go back and determine exactly where legislative or regulatory changes are potentially necessary. But that's going to take some time. Granted, it does create a challenge in terms of day-to-day operations.

B. Simpson: I understand what startup is all about, and it's a difficult time. However, in this particular case you're dealing with a community that's very jaundiced about government, so first impressions and the first foray into this actually become quite critical. They've

got this document that, as far as the words go, is a very good document. I think it captures the essence of the kinds of things that need to be done. That builds some hope, and then, again, those first impressions become critical. And I know the minister's not saying that, where he's discounting we're in startup phase. It's just the criticality of those initial forays.

Given that, the question I've been asking is: are the ministry's roles reactive to these circumstances? The way I liken it is that I think the ministry has an opportunity to either be a referee or a champion on first nations issues, where they're a go-to ministry and they referee between the various agencies and the first nations communities or where they're a champion and they proactively intervene when they see there are problems and get on the front end of the problem.

I'll give you a specific case in point to ask my question. Have the minister's staff engaged themselves in the Takla Lake blockade, as an example?

In terms of, I guess, the level of expectation that is out there and the anxiousness — if that's a word — that is felt in terms of bringing life to the concepts of the new relationship on the ground, I would certainly see the ministry as a champion for doing that, but not a blind champion in the sense of taking individual incidents that arise right now and trying to apply what is a yet-to-be-defined framework to those — because of the yet-to-be-defined piece. Certainly, we provide within the ministry support to other line ministries in trying to provide advice on how individual situations may be addressed. But the reality is that line ministries need to continue to operate within any legislative or regulatory requirements that they face, obviously, and that we try to provide advice that will help to move something forward.

The member mentioned Takla Lake. I want to make sure I'm thinking of the right issue. Perhaps he can expand on it a bit, and then we'll make sure we've got the right one.

B. Simpson: The Takla Lake band north of Prince George has had a blockade on since last week. They stopped a CN train and made it back up, and they're persisting in the blockade. Again, there are a number of issues at stake there, so it is interministerial. They've got issues with the Ministry of Mines, they've got issues with the Ministry of Forests, and they've got issues with the major licensees in the area. It's one of those ones that is interdisciplinary by its very nature. That's why I'm wondering if the ministry actually went and offered some assistance in that proactive vein.

Hon. T. Christensen: On the Takla Lake situation specifically, the ministry hasn't been directly involved in that.

My understanding of that, and it's a limited understanding, is that the first nation did have some issues with the licensee and that the Ministry of Forests is providing some advice or support to try and work through that. But my ministry has not been engaged specifically in that issue. There are others where the ministry will become involved, primarily to provide advice to line ministries.

I guess the reality of the situation at this point in time is that the ministries that have the most significant involvement on the land base — those being Forestry, and Energy and Mines — do have significant branches within their own ministries that are responsible for aboriginal relations. We play a support role to those branches specifically.

B. Simpson: I'm getting kicked off my soapbox here, so I have a couple of quick ones to wrap up. Again, you have to bear with me. My background isn't organizational effectiveness.

I help people put metrics together, so when I see metrics in the service plan…. They use the term, for example, under the first goal: "Increased social and economic stability and investment in the province through greater certainty." The objectives there, including targets that are established, where it says: "Concluded agreements that define rights and responsibilities between parties and facilitate economic development…."

Again, I hark back to forest and range agreements, which do explicitly that. If that's left to the line ministry, and the first nations are telling the line ministry they're not working for them…. That's where I struggle with the role of this new ministry. I think the minister gets my point, so I won't belabour it any more.

I do have a couple of quick specific questions. Again, it's for clarity for me, because I'm trying to understand the role. I have a first nations community in my location, the Soda Creek band, whose reserve land is sliding into the river. They've tried to get help for a number of years to get a change of reserve land, and they're getting nowhere.

Is that the kind of thing I can bring to this minister? Do I have to go somewhere else? Or do I have to deal with it just through the federal government, which doesn't seem to want to deal with it?

Hon. T. Christensen: The member has mentioned it a couple times in terms of the forest and range agreements. I think it's important to recognize that actually, notwithstanding the one court case challenging the forest and range agreements, there are a number of first nations that subsequent to that have chosen to enter into forest and range agreements because they felt it was a tool that was beneficial to them at that point.

I recognize that there are other first nations who have significant concerns around forest and range agreements. It's something that we're listening to, those

concerns, and that the leadership council has brought forward. It's an active topic of discussion, and certainly, my goal would be to have forest and range agreements or some other tool to facilitate the involvement of first nations in forestry that is workable for first nations. So that remains a goal, but forest and range agreements have worked for some first nations — clearly, not all.

In respect of the member's specific question around Soda Creek reserve land…. As the member knows, from a strict jurisdictional standpoint, obviously it's reserve land and is federal jurisdiction. So Indian and Northern Affairs Canada is the agency of responsibility.

Having said that, the goal of the province is to develop a more, I guess, functional relationship with the federal government when it comes to the work that both levels of government are doing to try and improve the lives of aboriginal people in British Columbia. I think we will see, ideally, coming out of the first ministers meeting, a clear indication that there is an interest in getting beyond a complete focus on the jurisdictional issues to more of a practical approach to the problem at hand and how we address it.

We'll obviously need to deal with jurisdiction issues, as you always need to between different levels of government. I think we need to find a way that we're recognizing again, as between the province and the federal government, that we're on the same page in terms of making progress and, ideally, have both of us working closely with first nations to make that progress.

B. Simpson: In the case of Soda Creek, when they don't get joy from the federal government, again, they're looking for somebody to help them. So I would hope that the ministry evolves into that role.

With respect to the forest-range agreement, I did have these discussions with the Minister of Forests and Range during estimates debate, and again I'll say on the record what I said to the minister then: if you've only got one option, sometimes you just sign it, because it's the only option you've got. There's a difference between signing an agreement and agreeing that it's the best way to do things, and in forest-range agreements I think that's the trap first nations are in.

One last question. When provincial government regulations put additional cost burdens on first nations non-reserve communities — so these are non-reserve communities — will the ministry facilitate some kind of support to those first nations? They're in socioeconomic constraints, those communities. I'll give you an example. Septic regulations are adding significant incremental burdens in all communities, but in first nations communities you go up the curve quite steeply. Just today, new regulations for wells have kicked in that will have similar economic burdens.

In those circumstances, will this ministry be looking at those kinds of regulatory changes and look specifically at the incremental bloating, particularly under the metrics around socioeconomic well-being in first nations communities?

Hon. T. Christensen: It's certainly not something that has been contemplated as a role of the ministry. As various regulations come forward, we want to be mindful of whether they have a disproportionate effect on first nations communities or aboriginal people and look at those impacts. Obviously — or perhaps, not obviously — it's something that I certainly see as part of my role: to try and figure out whether there is a disproportionate effect on first nations communities and, then, how we can work with those communities to try and address that.

I think one of the challenges when it's something like a regulation of general application that has an effect from an economic standpoint is that there's probably a range of communities, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, that are feeling that effect. The challenge will become how we make sure the regulation is actually going to be effective in addressing what it's intended to address. In the case of the well regulation, it's to ensure that those water sources remain safe. That's the primary objective. Our activity needs to shift to say: how do we ensure that that happens, whether it's an aboriginal or a non-aboriginal community?

S. Fraser: Since we're on infrastructure issues now, I want to touch on something just because it's timely and it's in the press right now. There are some communities that are in crisis, is the description. I think it's very accurate in some cases.

Water — I know the issue is federal, but we're seeing that this is not just in other provinces. It's not just in Ontario. It's in first nations communities here in B.C. In the case that I read about yesterday — I heard about on the CBC — it's been nine years that it's been a big problem.

Considering that it is technically a federal issue…. The fact is, it's a crisis, and it's in our own province. What resources can the ministry bring to bear, or what can we do — jointly, if we have to? How do we get action on this?

Hon. T. Christensen: I thank the member for the question. Obviously, it is topical. The member is correct that, clearly, it is federal jurisdiction if these issues are on-reserve. Having said that, certainly we're interested in working with the federal government and in pushing the federal government to address those challenges.

Unfortunately, in some cases, though it may appear to have simple answers in terms of the investment that may be necessary — whether it's a new water system or otherwise — what we find, when we look beyond the surface, is that it's a little more complex in terms of building the capacity to ensure that the water systems are maintained once they're in place.

To look on the glass-half-full side of things, to some extent, as we move forward and work in encouraging the federal government and demanding that the fed-

eral government address these challenges on-reserve, we also need to look for the opportunity, perhaps, to be providing training to first nations individuals in terms of maintaining and operating these water systems, in terms of the housing front — the construction of new housing or the repair or maintenance of existing housing.

Given what the nature of some of the discussions at the first ministers' meeting is likely to be around health, education and housing, I have no doubt that we will. I'm hopeful that we will come away from that meeting with what can be a more constructive approach between the province and the federal government to make real progress in addressing the host of issues that are on-reserve and, in some cases, off-reserve as well.

S. Fraser: I agree wholeheartedly. I like the stronger words: "to push the federal government." I believe we have a role as members of this House to be advocates for every community, but in this case, it's the first nations that are in crisis. If the responsibility lies on the doorstep of the federal government, certainly some responsibility lies on our doorstep here in this House to make sure that the federal government does what they have to do — and does it very quickly.

I believe that the minister is correct. It's not just a water issue; it's a housing issue. There's a whole bunch of issues around that, and again, it falls to the feds. However, it also falls to us to make sure that the feds react appropriately.

I guess, in the form of a question: can the minister work with the Minister of Health, for instance? This is a health issue. Again, it's on-reserve, federal, but this is our province, and it's our people that are basically put at risk. Do you have potential to try to influence that?

Hon. T. Christensen: There are a host of issues that we, as a province and as a country, recognize a need to make progress on. That's very much the reason that the government, through the Premier, is taking such a leadership role in the run-up to the first ministers' meeting, trying to focus the discussion on a solid plan and moving forward with some time lines and some objectives, so that we don't just embark on an exercise in further discussion, but embark upon some real work on the ground. We recognize that, and believe that to make progress, the federal government is going to need to live up to its obligations. Certainly, my impression so far is that the federal government is prepared to embark upon that role.

From a provincial standpoint, we want to make sure that we're working closely with them, so that the work the federal government is doing actually fits with the work that the province may be doing and so that we get beyond, as I said earlier, that sort of historic on-reserve/off-reserve debate and actually say: it is aboriginal people who experience a dramatic difference in their health outcomes versus non-aboriginal British Columbians.

It is aboriginal British Columbians that face a significant difference in their educational outcomes versus non-aboriginal British Columbians. It doesn't matter whether they're on-reserve or off-reserve. The fact is: the gap exists, and we had better all work to close it. Certainly, at the provincial level that will be a cross-government effort. The hope and, quite frankly, the expectation is that the federal government will become true partners in moving that forward.

S. Fraser: Hon. Chair, I'm going to thank the minister, because I think he has answered my next question. I just want to clarify that I have the right answer.

The federal government — it was in 2004, I think, September — announced $700 million to improve health conditions in aboriginal communities. It's anticipated, from what we've heard in the press, that there's another $4 billion possibly out of the upcoming meetings in Kelowna. I think the minister said he's going to be working very hard to make sure that British Columbia gets due access to those funds to help with situations like this. Am I correct in that assumption?

Hon. T. Christensen: Certainly, the member is correct that the province is going to work hard to ensure that British Columbia gets its fair share of any federal financial assistance that will be forthcoming. We have every reason to believe that there will be additional financial commitments made by the federal government in respect of the first ministers' meeting, although numbers haven't really been discussed as of yet, quite frankly.

What's equally important is that our discussions with the federal government not always just be: "Give us more money, so that we can spend it provincially." We do want to ensure that the federal government is living up to its obligations to first nations, but we want to work with them in doing that — to find out where we can more effectively partner, avoid duplicating our efforts and actually make a difference on the ground.

Certainly, a priority from British Columbia's standpoint is to ensure that we get effective programs, policies or on-the-ground work in place, so that we are truly working towards closing those gaps that I've spoken about and that the Premier has spoken about. The money, obviously, is a necessary part of that, but the most critical part is that we actually have things that are going to work, and then get the funding to assist them in happening.

S. Fraser: I'm mindful of the time, and I know we're limited. I'm hoping that we'll have a chance just before closing for tonight to have a minute for closing statements. I just want to make sure that's available to us.

I agree with the minister that the money is not everything, and that relationships that are based on money alone don't tend to be very significant relationships. They tend to be shallow at best. The words of things like the new-relationship agreement — and the spirit of those words — are imperative. The money — the $100

million or money from the feds — is not a substitute for a real new relationship, so I'm glad to hear the minister make those statements and those words.

I'm going to ask a few specific things, if I can, and I will have a few issues that I'm going to have to just list. I'll say who I'm getting them from, and then I'll leave them with the ministry, if I can, and, hopefully, just get them back in fairly short order. As you know, our night was a little bit abbreviated.

Cuts to legal aid. Aboriginal people are significantly, in a lot of cases, overrepresented in family and child welfare courts. The cuts to legal aid — and I don't mean this as a political jab or anything — have impacted the aboriginal community more significantly than any other group. Some of this funding needs to be restored. I'll put it in the interests of reconciliation. Along with that funding for special needs in schools…. I know it's not specifically this ministry, but it is too. These cuts to the school system have affected, to a large extent, aboriginal children, and there is a disproportionate representation of aboriginal children in our school system with special needs, for a variety of reasons.

These are cuts that have been made. Will there be any attempt to reconcile these cuts and to accomplish the goals that we all want to see?

Hon. T. Christensen: I have received sage advice not to speculate on what other ministries might do with their budgets. Notwithstanding that I'm tempted, I should take that advice. So, sorry.

In terms of the legal aid question, I'd encourage the member to raise it with the Attorney General. I'm well aware of some very good responses I could provide you on the education front, but I should leave that to the current Minister of Education.

How about funding for aboriginal family violence? There have been cuts to women's centres. Again, that has disproportionately affected aboriginal women. I know there has been an announcement. It is in the millions. Is it $12 million? I'm not sure where the announcement came out of. I'm not sure if this is the minister and ministry responsible. Possibly you could let me know that, and then I'll continue.

Hon. T. Christensen: The program dollars that are available in terms of family violence, including aboriginal family violence, are through the Ministry of Community Services. There were some significant additional dollars back in this fiscal year, but the member should speak directly with that minister to get the details of that.

S. Fraser: Is there no role for the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation in dealing with some of this? I see INAC has actually suspended funding for family violence in aboriginal communities. I'm not sure why. Maybe that's a question that can be brought up at the summit that's coming up here. It has had a detrimental effect, although, apparently, they'll continue the funding to existing programs. But they're not going to provide any new funding. As we know, that, de facto, is a cut over time.

On-reserve programs have been relying on voluntary support. We've seen this on the west coast. There have been some emergency funds made available, but there's a real need to fund positions and beds on reserve. Is that something, again, that can be advocated by this ministry, if not budgeted for?

Hon. T. Christensen: I would encourage the member to follow up with the Minister of Community Services so you can get, quite frankly, a more accurate answer than I'm able to provide you. My recollection in terms of the provincial funding is that some portion of that increase at the beginning of this fiscal year was specifically allocated for development of programs directed towards aboriginal women. I hope I'm correct in that, but that's certainly my recollection. Given, there was recognition within that funding envelope that there were a number of populations where considerably more outreach was necessary to, that the historic programs hadn't been effectively connecting with. I would encourage the member to follow up with the Minister of Community Services around that.

In terms of on-reserve/off-reserve, the goal there — although programs would be delivered by other ministries — would be to ensure, whether it's federal or provincial funding, that we're having the proverbial seamless system so that it's actually effective and you're not dependent on whether you're living on reserve or off reserve as to whether you can find somewhere safe to be.

Specifically, the Pacific native women's association — there was a significant cut there. Again, I apologize if I've got this wrong. Is there a role here in this ministry, or should I be consulting with another ministry?

Hon. T. Christensen: I can't comment specifically on that particular group. I have met with the B.C. Native Women's Society. Both the Minister of Community Services and I met with that organization. I think that where there are line ministries that have direct responsibility for programs that may be available for both an aboriginal and non-aboriginal population…. To the extent that those programs are available to an aboriginal population, I welcome the opportunity to find out about the programs so that I can try and put a lens of cross-government on what we're doing with respect to programs for aboriginal people, including aboriginal women, and also, ideally, put a lens on that relative to what the federal government is doing and ensure that the provincial government and the federal government are as best as possible working together — again, with that goal of ideally having those services be seamless.

I have several other issues that I will bring forward to the ministry. I can prepare them in a more readable form for tomorrow maybe, but one that I touched on was the Tla-o-qui-aht First Nation and their inquiry around low-interest loans and how to access that and how the ministry can be of help. Another one is dealing with the Cheam First Nation near the city of Chilliwack. It's flood control program issues around gravel extraction. Again, the details of these I will provide for you.

There was a question to the UNN regarding the BladeRunners program being set up in Port Alberni and assistance that could be had there. I think I've got two others, but I will provide them to the ministry if that's all right. I can be patient, because I know we're out of time.

One final question before we close, and it's an awkward one. I'm very much in favour of the new relationship. I am very much in favour of this new ministry's position on it, and I'm very hopeful, as most first nations are. Prior to the New Relationship document being made available to first nations…. There are 40-some agreements-in-principle that would have been arrived at prior to that date, if I'm not mistaken. Sorry; not agreements but level four, so fairly far down the road of negotiations. I guess there would be only four or five prior to the New Relationship document being made available to first nations.

I have had some discussions with first nations. There is a little bit of apprehension that the new words, the new position the government has taken has been a significant change and a bold change, I'd say, in a lot of ways — the words certainly are — to where our first nations were prior to that document when they were negotiating under somewhat different conditions, pre–new relationship. That has caused some apprehension amongst some of the nations that have been further down along that road.

Is there the ability for nations to look at where they've come to in an agreement? The New Relationship document words may actually make a previous agreement less than satisfactory. I hope I'm wording this correctly. I don't mean this to undermine the relationship, but it is a double-edged sword when a nation is that far down the road to negotiations and then the New Relationship document comes forward that says great things compared to the conditions they negotiated — the others up to level four, say.

Hon. T. Christensen: Actually, I appreciate the question, because it's important that I provide some clarity in terms of the new relationship and treaty negotiations. Certainly, we are fully committed to treaty negotiations and see the new relationship as actually helping move treaty negotiations along. Within the context of the new relationship, as it gains greater definition and practicality on the ground, my expectation is that we will develop more effective working relationships and, really, a climate of trust between government and first nations that can provide a bit of a catalyst in terms of moving forward a number of treaty negotiations.

We do currently have five agreements-in-principle, which are the last step before getting to a final agreement. We have 41 tables that are negotiating towards an agreement-in-principle.

Hon. T. Christensen: That's level four. In some cases, they may be quite close to an agreement-in-principle. In other cases, unfortunately, there's a long, long way to go.

I wouldn't want any first nation to view the stage they believe they're at in the treaty negotiation process as somehow in conflict with the new relationship. The new relationship is very much intended to complement the treaty process and provide an opportunity for the government to engage with first nations who have chosen not to participate in the treaty process. They certainly should be seen as complementary initiatives.

S. Fraser: Brand-new ministry, brand-new minister, brand-new critic and, I must say, a very cooperative staff. I thank you for the day.

The Nuu-chah-nulth term hishuk-ish ts'awalk means "all things are connected," which means us too. I think we play a very valuable role together. I think it's a good…. That check and balance is an important part of this puzzle.

As I've said earlier, I will not be obstructive in the way of new relationship building and reconciliation. If I see things that I don't think are happening appropriately or that I think can be done better, my role as critic will be to point that out as effectively as I can. However, I believe cooperation is a better way to work. From the words, we're heading in the same direction. I'm very enthusiastic about how things are going. I thank you very much for your time and your candour and your patience with some of us that are doing this process. It's a brand-new process for many of us.

Hon. T. Christensen: Let me, certainly, thank my staff who have assisted me today and always do so ably and try to keep me on track. I'm not sure they're always successful.

I do want to thank the members for their questions. As many members have rightfully acknowledged, we are embarked on new territory when it comes to our relationship with first nations. I'm very optimistic and excited and encouraged about that new direction, but there will be bumps along the road. It's important that we have the opportunity to reflect on those bumps and try to work through them in a spirit of cooperation between government and first nations, recognizing that

we do have many more common interests than we have disagreements, and we need to ensure that we're capturing the areas where we agree.

I do want to thank the members for their questions. I recognize that we may have run a little short on time and that the member for Alberni-Qualicum does have some additional points that he wants us to be able to provide some detail on. If you can provide those to my office, we'll do our best to get those turned around to you as quickly as we can.

Hon. T. Christensen: I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion of the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation and ask leave to sit again.

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