Hansard — Tuesday, May 29, 2007 a.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


Tabling Documents		8281
	Office of the Ombudsman, special report No. 31, Winning Fair and Square: A Report on the British Columbia Lottery Corporation's Prize Payout Process

Petitions		8281
	S. Hawkins

Tabling Documents		8281
	Major capital project plans for Kelowna General Hospital, Vernon Jubilee Hospital and Royal Jubilee Hospital expansions

Committee of Supply		8281
	Estimates: Office of the Premier (continued)
	Hon. G. Campbell
	C. James

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		8289
	Estimates: Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation (continued)
	S. Fraser
	C. Trevena
	Hon. M. de Jong
	G. Coons
	N. Simons

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present a report of the Ombudsman, special report No. 31, Winning Fair and Square: A Report on the British Columbia Lottery Corporation's Prize Payout Process.

S. Hawkins: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of your constituent, I'm presenting three petitions from Cue's GameRoom, Grill and Pizzeria regarding changes to the existing liquor licence as well as the application for a primary liquor licence for Cue Connections.

Hon. G. Abbott: In accordance with section 14 of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, I'm tabling two major capital project plans for the recently announced Kelowna General Hospital and Vernon Jubilee Hospital expansions and the Royal Jubilee Hospital expansion in Victoria.

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply — in this chamber continued estimates of the Office of the Premier and in Committee A continued estimates debate for the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations.

Hon. G. Campbell: If I may, I'd just like to clarify an answer that I gave yesterday to ensure full accuracy. The Leader of the Opposition asked whether the government will look at measures to ensure that PIN e-mails are backed up on the server, and I responded that they currently are.

In fact, what I have been now informed is that we have taken steps to upgrade our technology so the server can back up PIN e-mails. This is scheduled to begin shortly. I don't want to leave the impression that it has been ongoing. It was a technology upgrade that was required. I had understood that it was in place. It is not in place yet, but it will be shortly.

C. James: If I can then ask a clarification question on the PIN. As the Premier pointed out, we had the same information, which was that PINs aren't currently backed up on the system. The Premier said "shortly." Could he give any kind of time indication of when that will occur? Will he ensure that people are aware of that?

Hon. G. Campbell: There are regularly scheduled refreshers for the entire system. This is scheduled for the next date when that will take place. I can't say today what that date is. When I discover that, I will ensure that the Leader of the Opposition knows. I'm sure the public service will be informed as well through the normal channels.

I just thought I'd begin by summarizing a little bit of our discussion yesterday and then move into discussions around the Premier's staff as we left off yesterday.

When we take a look at what we learned yesterday in our discussions, we learned that there may or may not be a fall session depending on the Premier's decision. I'm disappointed. I had expected that when a fixed calendar was put in place, as the Premier himself had said, it would take politics out of decisions of the Legislature and it would determine that the people's business would be done. But apparently that's not so. Apparently, the Premier, as we found out yesterday, will decide himself whether we want a fall session or not and whether it fits his political determination. So I think that's very disappointing.

We also learned yesterday that the government may or may not disclose documents required for the Basi-Virk trial. Again, confidentiality may still apply, and that's a concern, I think, to all British Columbians.

We also heard yesterday that the Premier wouldn't commit that either he or cabinet ministers or former cabinet ministers would testify if called to Basi-Virk and that he would give them that direction to testify. I think, again, that's a great disappointment to British Columbians who really expected that we'd hear something clear.

We heard clarification from the Premier today around the PIN numbers. I would hope that we'll also hear clarification from the Premier around private e-mails because, as he acknowledged yesterday, government officials may use, from time to time, private e-mails to do government business. In the same way that PINs are not accessible, private e-mails are not accessible. I

certainly would hope that we'll hear the same kind of concern from the Premier about private e-mails that we heard around the clarification of PINs today.

Then the final piece we learned yesterday was that…. With all the questions we've been hearing around allegations of dirty tricks out of the Premier's office, we heard from the Premier that he isn't able to tell us what portion of his budget, either staff or resources, is used for media monitoring. He doesn't know. He doesn't have that breakout done. He said that if we are interested in that, it's our job to try and determine it.

Again, I think it's incredible, when you look at the questions that have been raised, that we aren't able to get that kind of information from the Premier. But it just shows, as I said yesterday in my opening remarks, the kind of stonewalling that we've seen from this Premier and from this government over the last number of months. I sincerely hoped that the estimates process would be an opportunity to be able to get answers, but apparently not.

I'd like to move now into the work of Ms. McDonald. We know that Ms. McDonald recently contracted with KPMG to review allegations that Paul Taylor inappropriately directed lobbying work to Brian Kieran and his company Pilothouse, which is a firm that's closely connected to the allegations around B.C. Rail bribery and fraud charges.

On April 19 we heard the Times Colonist report that the KPMG report will be finished in about a month. So my question to the Premier is: why is that report late?

Hon. G. Campbell: I have no idea where the Times Colonist was getting their information from. I can tell the Leader of the Opposition that the report is not, in her words or in the Times Colonist's words, late.

The Deputy Minister to the Premier established that an independent review would be undertaken, that it would be thorough and that upon its completion, it would be made available to the public in full.

I can't say where the Times Colonist's information came from. I can say that at the end of March, this engagement with KPMG was begun. They are carrying out their report, as we have let the House know in the weeks gone by.

C. James: Can the Premier tell this House when they expect the report? And if the report is going to be due, will he table it this week before the House rises?

Hon. G. Campbell: When KPMG is satisfied that they have completed the due diligence that was required under the report, it will be submitted to my deputy minister. My deputy minister will then put it through a freedom-of-information review. When that review is complete, the report will be made fully available to the opposition and to the public for their consideration.

I do not believe that the report will be complete — and certainly an FOI review would not be complete — before the end of this week, but it will be done as soon as KPMG says that they are satisfied with their report and submit the completed report to the deputy minister.

C. James: Just for clarification, has KPMG submitted the report for review to the deputy?

Hon. G. Campbell: KPMG has not finished its review at this time. When they have finished the review and submitted their final report, the deputy will take that report, put it through the normal freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy commission process, and then it will be made public.

Hon. G. Campbell: There is no draft report. The review is not complete. Obviously, if there's no draft report, my deputy minister has not had an opportunity to see a report that doesn't exist.

C. James: Just to ask for further clarification. Have any verbal updates on the report been received by the deputy?

Hon. G. Campbell: My deputy minister has had the chance to meet with representatives of KPMG to discuss process updates to make sure progress has been made. There is no final report that has been concluded or a draft report that has been written. When that final report is written, it will be submitted to the deputy minister and, subject to FOI, will be submitted to the opposition and members of the public.

C. James: Just to clarify again. Updates have been given or meetings have occurred with the deputy and KPMG around the review. Is there any e-mail correspondence that has gone back and forth on updates on how the review is going? If so, will the Premier agree to table those e-mails?

Hon. G. Campbell: All of the documentation with regard to this review will be made available upon completion of the review and subject to FOI.

C. James: How many meetings has the deputy had with KPMG regarding this since she engaged them to do this investigation?

Hon. G. Campbell: I can't tell you the exact number of times that the deputy minister has met with KPMG. All those meetings are documented in her calendar. I know the opposition asks for the deputy minister's calendar on a regular basis under FOI. All those meetings are clearly in the calendar for activities, but I can't give an exact number of times today.

Hon. G. Campbell: Just to be sure the Leader of the Opposition knows, all the documentation with regard to this review will be released at the conclusion of the review.

I can confirm to the member that all meetings are being documented as part of the review, and we won't be releasing additional information on the review while the review is taking place. However, all those meetings are being documented, and that will be fully part of the review that will be available to the members opposite as well as to the public.

C. James: I didn't think there were new ways for this government to continue to stonewall and avoid answering questions, but we see another one. FOI — wait for the reports.

I would have thought that it would have been a very straightforward question and a very straightforward six-week time period for the deputy to take a look at her calendar and determine how many times she'd met with KPMG during the time she had taken them on to do this investigation until now. But apparently not.

I'll now ask a question of the Premier. I'll come back to the deputy's handling of this entire issue, but I'd like to ask the Premier. He will remember that he received a letter from the MLA for Yale-Lillooet back in November regarding Paul Taylor, the former Deputy Minister of Finance and current CEO of ICBC, directing work to Pilothouse and lobbyist Brian Kieran.

I'd like to ask the Premier what his first reaction was when he saw Pilothouse mentioned in that letter from the MLA for Yale-Lillooet. He gave a clear "no" response in that letter, so I'd like to ask him now: did he see any red flags? Did he see any areas of concern?

Hon. G. Campbell: Mr. Lali sent a letter containing, frankly, very little detail, which was extremely vague in nature. The issues raised were looked into by my office to the extent that his limited information allowed. We found that there were no issues of concern and responded accordingly.

Unfortunately, if Mr. Lali had brought forward substantive concerns at the time, we would have been able to….

If the member for Yale-Lillooet's letter, which was referred to earlier by the Leader of the Opposition, had any substantive concerns, then we could have followed them up. However, the letter was actually not even initially received by our office. We were asked and received a copy from CHNL, a media outlet in Kamloops. In fact, when Mr. Lali was asked for more information on the radio, he said that he had none.

The specific allegations that we were able to look into, we did look into. It had to do with whether or not as Deputy Minister of Finance any of the contracts had been entered into with a Mr. Kieran. We looked at that. There was no evidence of that. That's what the letter in response to the member for Yale-Lillooet actually said.

C. James: Just so I'm clear, it appears that the Premier did discuss with his deputy the concerns in the letter from the member for Yale-Lillooet regarding Mr. Taylor's relationship with Pilothouse and Brian Kieran. What I heard the Premier say is that those issues were discussed between the Premier and his deputy. So my question to the Premier is: did the Premier, Ms. McDonald or anyone else in his office take any action to determine the nature of Mr. Taylor's relationship with Pilothouse and Brian Kieran following the receipt of the letter from the member for Yale-Lillooet?

Hon. G. Campbell: First, to correct the member opposite, I did not say that the Deputy Minister to the Premier had reviewed the letter. That was not the case. The office did, through our normal correspondence branch. In the course of developing a response to the letter, we made inquiries. The letter specifically referred to the activities and whether or not the Ministry of Finance had entered into a contract. The Minister of Finance saw no evidence of any contracts.

In fact, I believe Mr. Taylor, who was at that point no longer with the ministry, was asked if he was aware of any contracts. The answer was no. It was actually not brought to the attention of my deputy minister.

However, the results of the review that we did led to the letter that was received by the member for Yale-Lillooet. When asked if he had any further information, his answer was no.

This is something that took place, I think, almost six months ago now. We followed through, as we normally would, with a piece of correspondence to ascertain the facts, and we then responded to the member for Yale-Lillooet. My deputy minister did not have any contact with that particular exchange.

C. James: Who did that investigation? The Premier said an investigation was done. Mr. Taylor was talked to. The Finance Ministry was talked to around contracts. Who in the Premier's office did that investigation?

Hon. G. Campbell: I think it's important to put this in the proper context. We received a letter from the member for Yale-Lillooet. There was virtually no detail in the letter. There were some vague questions in the letter. The member for Yale-Lillooet was even asked if he had any specific information to provide. His answer to the media was no.

It was a letter that was dealt with by the correspondence branch. I can't say specifically who was responding to that specific letter. In following up correspondence from my office, it's not unusual for the correspondence branch to ascertain the facts and to reply. The facts that we were able to ascertain through contacts with the Ministry of Finance, which also checked with Mr. Taylor himself…. Mr. Taylor could not recall any contracts. The letter reflects the effects of that.

There was no investigation. There was a letter that we received, and the letter was responded to on the basis of the facts that were available. That is, I think, the appropriate way for us to deal with matters of that nature. It is important to note that we get lots and lots of letters from people, including, on occasion, MLAs. We do our best to ascertain the facts and respond accordingly.

C. James: The correspondence branch did the phone call, then, to Paul Taylor and the Finance Ministry and wrote the letter back, according to the Premier. At that point, it appears that the Premier's office didn't have any concerns regarding that correspondence.

My question to the Premier would be: can the Premier tell this House how it moved from not being a concern in the Premier's office to the Finance Minister standing up in the Legislature and advising this House that this was a very serious situation?

Hon. G. Campbell: Again, the Leader of the Opposition has made a statement that's not correct, so I want to be clear about what took place. The correspondence branch checked with the Ministry of Finance, which checked with Paul Taylor. That's what I've said clearly twice now.

Secondly — let me be as open as I can about this — it was not the MLA for Yale-Lillooet's letter, which was very vague, which he was unable to expand upon, that led to the current KPMG review. Let me read the letter, hon. Chair. The member for Yale-Lillooet wrote a letter saying:

I then replied on December 12. I received that letter from the member for Yale-Lillooet, which was dated November 1, on November 20, as I mentioned, after hearing about it on CHNL radio. The first copy I received was from the radio station.

I think the important thing to note is that the review being undertaken now was initiated, in fact, by an e-mail that was forwarded to government by Mr. Taylor himself. That e-mail was forwarded to government. It was reviewed. The details of it were reviewed by my deputy minister. That review was also in concert with the Public Service Agency.

It was then decided, out of an excess of caution, that it would be appropriate to establish an independent review. That independent review is being undertaken by KPMG today as a result of the e-mail that was received from Mr. Taylor, which was drafted by a third party.

C. James: The Finance Minister informed this House that as soon as the information was made available to the Premier and the Deputy Minister to the Premier — I'm presuming that's the e-mail that the Premier is referring to that came from Paul Taylor — Ms. McDonald immediately conducted the review.

My question, then, to the Premier would be: what were the precise steps that she took in initiating that review, and did she seek legal advice regarding that course of action?

Hon. G. Campbell: Again, to put this in context, when the e-mail was received, my deputy minister initiated an initial review. She saw no issues of concern. However, out of an excess of caution, she felt it would be worthwhile to engage an independent third party to assist her in completing that full and independent review. All documentation, all the steps that are taken and the final report will be made available to the opposition as well as to the public upon completion of the review.

C. James: Further questions, then, around that process. Did the deputy minister check the lobbyist act and the registry, the standard of conduct for public employees, and did she speak to Mr. Taylor?

Hon. G. Campbell: I think it's important to understand that all of the information will be made available upon completion of the review, not while it is underway. I have said on a number of occasions that this information — the documentation, the steps that are taken, the review itself — will be made available to the opposition, subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and it will be made available as soon as the review is complete. I don't intend to discuss the review as it is ongoing.

C. James: The Premier can't hide behind this issue. This isn't before the courts. This isn't a sub judice issue. This is a review started in the Premier's office. This is

estimates on the Premier's office. This is an opportunity for the Premier to answer questions about what's going on in his office.

I find it incredible that the Premier would say he's not going to answer any questions on a review that was started in his own office. It's completely, completely unacceptable, and I will continue to ask the questions.

Let's take a look at what the Minister of Finance herself said in this House. She said: "Whenever something like this happens, then the proper procedures are followed." So can the Premier tell us, then: what are those proper procedures?

Hon. G. Campbell: The proper procedures are, I think, quite straightforward. First, you ascertain the facts. We endeavoured to do that, and the deputy minister did that. There is a consultation that takes place with relevant individuals. In doing so, the steps that are taken are fully documented. It is important to note that as they are fully documented, so are the steps taken documented. In this case, out of an excess of caution, it was decided that we would also be guided by the professional standards of KPMG.

All of the steps will be available to the opposition when this review is completed. All of the steps will be available to the public. The full report will be available to the public, subject to freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy review, and that is the correct procedure to take.

There is no question…. I hear, certainly, from the Leader of the Opposition that she may question this, but we at this point are being guided by the professional standards that are followed by KPMG to ensure that that independent report is carried out.

We've had discussions about this in the House. I understand that there may be people that think we shouldn't follow those professional standards. This government believes it is best and, in fact, in the public interest to follow those professional standards as we pursue the completion of this report.

C. James: I wish I could have faith in the government actually releasing everything to the public, but I'm afraid their record speaks for itself, which is that we won't see information.

It's important that these questions be asked because these lead to why the review was engaged for KPMG by the deputy and what steps were taken building up to that investigation. So my question to the Premier is: was the deputy to the Premier concerned about maintaining the integrity of documents, files and other information in anticipation of review coming up somewhere along the line?

Hon. G. Campbell: As I mentioned, all of the staff in the Premier's office are trained in freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy protocols. In fact, they're all trained in terms of document management.

The Deputy Minister to the Premier is obviously concerned about the integrity of the public service, integrity of the documents and integrity of the processes that are undertaken in the public service. I can assure the member opposite that KPMG are concerned about the integrity of those processes as well.

One of the things that I think is important about getting the report in its final form…. It reflects and in fact respects the integrity and the professional ethics of KPMG in carrying out this review.

I also think it's important for the Leader of the Opposition to understand that the senior public servants that we have in this province are concerned, first and foremost, with the integrity of the public and integrity of the processes which they are charged with.

I think this is a case where that integrity is going to be maintained as we conclude this review by my deputy minister. When that review is concluded, the steps taken, the documentation, the activities underway will all be made available to the opposition and the public subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

C. James: If the deputy began a review, she may have anticipated and must have anticipated that something might come up, or she wouldn't have started the review. You would expect that she would have taken steps to make sure that documents would have been preserved and otherwise, just in case a review came forward.

My question to the Premier is: did the deputy review Ministry of Finance records regarding contact with Pilothouse on behalf of the New Car Dealers?

Hon. G. Campbell: Hon. Chair, I'm not quite sure what the opposition leader is implying. There is no reason to question the integrity of the public service in British Columbia regarding document management or, frankly, to question their integrity on any issues.

As I've said, all the steps that were undertaken will be part of this review and will be made available upon completion of this review. That is the appropriate way for us to act.

We have asked for an independent review to take place under the auspices of KPMG. When you ask for an independent review to take place, you are accepting the fact that you will be subjected to the ethical and professional standards of the reviewer — in this case, KPMG. They have full and unfettered access to all documents.

All of the public service is trained in the management of documents and assuring the documents are available. Upon seeing the review, if the leader has a complaint to make with the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy commissioner or someone else, then she would be in a position to make that complaint.

It is important for us to get all the information and all the facts. They will be made available. They will be made available to the opposition and to the public, subject to freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy legislation, upon completion of the review that is currently underway. That seems to me to be the way to properly process the information that is before us.

As I've mentioned before, a third-party e-mail was submitted to ICBC. Mr. Taylor himself submitted that e-mail to my deputy minister, who carried out the review that I've mentioned and that we've talked about over the last little while. As that review was taking place, all appropriate steps were taken to protect the public interest.

C. James: Again, it's important that these questions be asked, because this government's record is anything but stellar on making sure that they release information — all the information — to the public.

Did Ms. McDonald ever provide a report on her initial investigation that led to the KPMG being engaged in this review?

Hon. G. Campbell: Let me say this again. My deputy minister's review is currently underway. It is underway with the assistance of KPMG. The initial review led, out of an excess of caution, my deputy minister to say that she felt it would be best for us to bring in an independent third party to review all the documentation and go down any paths that they decided were appropriate to come to a conclusion and write a report.

The report is not written yet. When the report is written and submitted, the report will be subject to freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy legislation. It will then be made available to the public and to the opposition. All documentation will be made available, and all the process steps will be part of that final report.

C. James: Just to clarify my question again for the Premier: what did Ms. McDonald give to KPMG? Did she not prepare a report? Did she give them a blank slate and say: "Come in"? I think it's a reasonable question to ask. What documentation was given and what report was given by Ms. McDonald to KPMG when they were engaged to do this review?

Hon. G. Campbell: As I've mentioned on a number of occasions this morning, I'm not going to report on the review while the review is underway. However, I will say again that all documentation regarding the full review will be made available when the review is complete. All the processes that were undertaken will be made available when the review is complete.

I understand the Leader of the Opposition is wanting me to discuss the review while it's underway. I won't do that.

We have said to KPMG that we expect an independent review. We are meeting the guidelines that are required to assure that review can take place. When that review is complete, when that report is written, it will be submitted.

It will be subject to Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy, and the opposition and the public will get all the information that is contained in that report, subject to freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy legislation.

D. Jarvis: I have today up in the galleries 48 students from Blueridge Elementary School in North Vancouver–Seymour under the auspices of their teacher, Mrs. Harivel. I wish that everyone would make them welcome.

The Chair: I do want to remind the Leader of the Opposition on the repetitious nature of some of the questions. I would just encourage the Leader of the Opposition. I'll recognize the Leader of the Opposition at this time.

C. James: Thank you, hon. Chair. It would be nice if we got answers back on the questions, which is part of the reason that the questions have to be asked again. But with respect to the Chair, I'll continue on.

The Premier said that this review was independent and being done by KPMG, but in the previous question he said that the review was being undertaken by his deputy with the assistance of KPMG. Perhaps the Premier could clarify that.

Hon. G. Campbell: As I've mentioned before, my deputy minister received a copy of a third-party e-mail. Upon her initial review and out of an excess of caution, she felt it would be best to bring in a third party to conduct an independent assessment of the issues arising in the e-mail.

When she receives the results of the independent review, I anticipate that the steps of her review will be complete as well. When the results of that independent review are submitted, that review will be subject to Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy and available to the public according to that legislation.

C. James: It seems to get more confusing rather than clearer, so I'll try again. If I follow the steps correctly, according to the Premier, the deputy to the Premier did a quick review, didn't see anything wrong and decided out of an abundance of caution that she would contract with KPMG to do an independent review, as the Premier calls it.

That independent review will then report back and provide information to the deputy to the Premier, who then will close off that review herself and provide that information — to whom?

Hon. G. Campbell: Hon. Chair, I'm not sure where the confusion lies with the opposition. I've tried to lay out the course of action that has been undertaken. The KPMG report when completed will be made public and made available subject to freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy legislation. I anticipate that upon receipt of the KPMG report the steps my deputy minister has and will take will also be complete.

However, the current step is to await receipt of the report that she's requested from KPMG. I think that no one has ever suggested that that report was not requested by the deputy minister, and certainly, no one should be suggesting that my deputy minister will do anything except make that entire report available, all documentation available. All steps taken in this matter will be made available to the public.

KPMG, as I've mentioned, will be outlining all of those things in the report that will be finalized. When it's finalized, it will come to the opposition and members of the public subject to freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy legislation.

The Chair: Members, the Chair has heard the answer numerous times, and I would again remind the member about repetition and ask the member to move on to another line of questioning.

C. James: Thank you, hon. Chair. I'm continuing on with the review. It's important that we take a look at the terms of reference and the instructions given to KPMG for this review in order for the public to have any kind of confidence that KPMG is looking at all of the issues that need to be looked at.

It's pretty clear that unless we know what those terms of reference were and what instructions were given to KPMG, the public won't know whether KPMG is going to look at everything. So my question to the Premier would be: will he table the terms of reference? What instructions did his deputy give to KPMG to do this review?

Hon. G. Campbell: The question that the opposition leader is raising now has been canvassed during question period in the House, and it's been canvassed today. I think that it's important to note, as we have said before, that the full review, the terms of reference, the documentation, the process undertaken, the steps taken and the full report itself will be made available upon completion of the review.

That is the appropriate way to carry out this activity, and that's how the government intends to follow through with it. The opposition leader knows that. We have been very clear that that's how we intend to carry this process out to its rightful conclusion.

C. James: It's clear that the Premier refuses to release the terms of reference and any information that may assist the public in understanding whether this is a true investigation or not. I think the answer is pretty clear. After the Premier's performance this morning, it's very clear that the Premier doesn't want the public to know what's going on in this investigation.

My question to the Premier would be: does KPMG have access to all documents, all relevant government records, Mr. Taylor's files, his meeting schedules and Pilothouse documents as well?

Hon. G. Campbell: I actually answered that question earlier this morning, but I want to say it again so the Leader of the Opposition can hear it. There is full and unfettered access to all government documents with regard to this review that KPMG is undertaking.

The Chair: Members, I again remind the member about repetition. The Chair does remember some of this being asked.

C. James: Does KPMG have investigative powers to review and retrieve evidence? Often those powers have to be given through a review. Does KPMG have that power?

Hon. G. Campbell: As I have mentioned before this morning, this is a government review. Government has placed no restrictions on KPMG in the undertaking of that review.

C. James: Just to sum up what we've heard from the Premier. Just so that we're clear, we've heard that KPMG has been contracted by the deputy to the Premier to do a review, to undertake a review on an issue that the deputy to the Premier said was not of concern. Out of an abundance of caution they decided to do this review, but she'd already made a ruling that it wasn't an issue or wasn't a concern.

They may or may not have investigative powers, because the Premier hasn't been clear on that. So we're not really sure whether KPMG has investigative powers to look into either Pilothouse or Mr. Taylor.

We also know that the deputy to the Premier let Mr. Taylor know that he was part of this investigation. Based on this, I'd like to ask the Premier: does he think that this really is an independent investigation and review of this entire issue?

Hon. G. Campbell: My answer to the member opposite is yes, I am confident about the independence of this review. KPMG is a professional, accredited body. In fact, they are audited themselves for the work that they do. They have taken on this task. They have unfettered access to government documentation. They will write a report that they believe meets the challenges or answers the questions that may be raised.

That report will be made available. The terms of reference for the report will be made available. All documentation will be made available. All the process steps will be made available. The report will be subject to freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy legislation. It will be given, subject to that, to the opposition and to members of the public.

I'm not sure what the leader is implying here. I believe that KPMG has an exceptional reputation. I also believe that members of the public service are acting in the public interest as we pursue this information and as this review takes place.

C. James: Just to look at another issue regarding Paul Taylor. Is the current relationship between Paul Taylor and the New Car Dealers part of the KPMG review?

Hon. G. Campbell: Maybe we should just back up one step here. All of the issues arising from the e-mail are a subject of the review that is underway. The full terms of reference, the documentation and the processes that are taken will be part of the final report which is brought forward by KPMG. That report will be subjected to freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy legislation review and then will be made available to the opposition and members of the public.

C. James: The Premier has outlined exactly the difficulty here, which is that the public doesn't know the terms of reference. The public has no idea what the terms of reference are for KPMG. They have no idea what the Premier has them looking at, what the deputy to the Premier has them looking at, what issues are part of that investigation.

It's no wonder there are all kinds of questions being asked by the public, by the press and by others about this review, about some of the dealings that have been going on and some very serious allegations that have been raised.

Part of the reason for asking those questions is to try and find out if that's part of the investigation — not after the fact, but in fact during the review, so we can make sure that these issues are part of the review.

We know that the New Car Dealers, with the assistance of Jamie Elmhirst, launched a lobbying campaign to change vicarious liability to the benefit of the car dealers and potential massive costs to ICBC and the health care system. The New Car Dealers, as we also know, are one of the B.C. Liberal Party's largest contributors, giving $320,000 in 2002 and $150,000 in 2005.

So my question to the Premier is: did Paul Taylor, CEO of ICBC and former president of the New Car Dealers, have any role in these legislative changes?

Hon. G. Campbell: Again, I will say that KPMG has full latitude to pursue any issues that arise out of the e-mail. I can't tell you what all their undertakings are at this point or what they're pursuing at this point. I will be able to do that, at the same time as the Leader of the Opposition, when the KPMG report is finalized and made available to the opposition and the public, subject to freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy legislation.

C. James: Since we don't know whether this is part of the investigation of KPMG, and the Premier won't tell us whether this is part of the investigation of KPMG, will the Premier agree to delay royal assent on Bill 35 until the KPMG report comes in?

The Chair: I remind the member that that is a question directly dealing with legislation, and that is not part of the debate for Committee of Supply.

C. James: I'll move on to talk about some other staffing issues related to the Premier's office. As we know, the standards of conduct for the public service apply to all in-council appointments as well as other public service employees. It states: "The government of British Columbia believes the highest standards of conduct among public service employees are essential to maintain and enhance the public's trust and confidence in the public service."

Does the Premier agree that all employees in the Premier's office should adhere to this policy?

Hon. G. Campbell: Yes. In fact, all OIC appointees are required to sign public service standards of conduct that include clear expectations around their behaviour while employed, Further, they're bound by an oath to keep government information confidential after employment.

C. James: Who in the Premier's office is responsible for ensuring that this policy is maintained? And if the policy is violated, who in the Premier's office is responsible for enforcing it?

Hon. G. Campbell: I was looking for the specific sections in the act, which I could refer to the Leader of the Opposition with regard to…. However, I don't have those.

I can say that in my office, all of the professional political staff report ultimately to the chief of staff. All other employees in government, including all the ministries, report through their deputy ministers. Their deputy ministers obviously report to the deputy minister responsible for the public service, the Deputy Minister to the Premier.

I should say at the outset, though, that I believe that public servants do adhere to their oaths of office and their standards of conduct. We think it's important, and I think people involved in the public service, regardless of whether they are staff for the opposition or staff for government, take those oaths seriously and their service to the public seriously.

C. James: When that individual, the chief of staff, who as the Premier says is responsible for the political staff and for ensuring that the oath of office is followed and the code of conduct is followed…. If that person, the chief of staff, doesn't do their job in ensuring that that occurs, who is ultimately responsible? Is it the Premier?

Hon. G. Campbell: First, just to clarify the last question. OIC appointments under section 12 in my office report to the Deputy Minister to the Premier.

OIC appointments under section 15 report to Martyn Brown, and Martyn Brown is accountable to me.

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

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

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

S. Fraser: Prior to going along with the $50 million–plus, we have a few questions today. If it's possible, there are a few local questions, and I've got members, maybe from both sides of the House, who are wanting to ask those. I thought we'd try to get some of those out of the way, as far as the closer-on-the-ground stuff right now this morning and possibly going into this afternoon. Then I will be finishing off with my line of questioning to close off the day.

C. Trevena: I have a couple of areas of questions that I'd like to explore with the minister, some of which I have asked about in question period and through letters to the minister.

The first area I wanted to explore is the consultation over the removal of lands from TFL 6, Western Forest Products lands, in the Kwakiutl traditional territories. The band was first notified about the possible withdrawal of these lands in August 2005. At that point, it was very much giving notification from the Ministry of Forests. I realize this is the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, but I wanted to explore the consultation process.

The band was given notice in August 2005 that this was going to be happening. At any stage, is the ministry responsible for being involved in the consultation process, or is that all a matter of the Ministry of Forests?

Hon. M. de Jong: The obligation to consult obviously accrues to the Crown in the right of the province of British Columbia in its entirety, and I want to emphasize that up front. There is wide-ranging work taking place around the refinement and establishment of consultation protocols, and the First Nations Leadership Council plays an instrumental role in that. There is a working group that is focused entirely on that.

Generally, however, insofar as specific decisions relating to land use and resource use, the individual department of government — the line ministry, as they're frequently referred to — would have responsibility. That was the case and has been the case with the Ministry of Forests.

C. Trevena: Although this does rest with the Ministry of Forests, I realize that the minister was also previously the Minister of Forests and has seen a similar process run through on the west coast. I just wanted to talk a little bit about the consultation process, because while it does rest with the Minister of Forests, the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation is obviously very conscious of ensuring that there is good communication between his government and the bands.

In October 2005 the band wrote to the Minister of Forests, saying that they had learned about the possible removal of the lands and were concerned. They wanted to make sure that some of the lands were not removed, and they were looking forward to an initial meeting in order to lay the groundwork for the new relationship. That's a quote from the letter from then Chief Councillor Marion Wright.

How long would the minister expect it to take, from a response from the band to a government department, for talks to actually take place?

Hon. M. de Jong: Obviously, all representatives of the Crown — all ministries and the government itself — take the obligations that exist very seriously. The dialogue that takes place is viewed as an important component of the Crown's responsibility and the Crown's ability to manage the land base.

There are individualized circumstances that relate to individual transactions or proposed transactions, but in all cases the willingness and the desire to engage with first nations in whose traditional territories resource-related activities are taking place…. Those obligations are taken very seriously.

C. Trevena: So this could take a matter of weeks, months or years. There is no necessary time prescribed for how long it's going to take to get from a position of potential disagreement or uncertainty through to a resolution. The government would not be putting a specific time frame on this.

Hon. M. de Jong: That is so. At the same time, however, we do assign a level of import to carrying out these discussions in a timely way. We think that is fair and appropriate for the first nation, for third-party proponents who have an interest in the land use planning. We think it is also consistent with what the courts had in mind.

The challenge, of course, is balancing the idea of timeliness with thoroughness, recognizing the fact that, as the courts have said in past decisions, consultation does not equate with a veto. Sometimes at the end of the consultative process it is a bit of a stretch to suggest that a genuine consensus has been arrived at, although we strive for consensus.

All of those factors are at play, and it does create a tension between the desire to move ahead in a timely way but also to recognize that the consultation has to be genuine, bona fide and in good faith. Sometimes that takes longer than in other instances.

C. Trevena: I'm very pleased that you say that the consultation has to be genuine, bona fide and in good faith, because I think the minister is aware that I'm very concerned that the consultation in regards to the withdrawal of the lands from TFL 6 in Kwakiutl traditional territories was none of those things.

The Kwagiulth did get legal advice. They got a legal opinion when this all started at the end of 2005, the beginning of 2006. At that point it was suggested to them that they should be very concerned about Western's attempt to designate its private lands as managed forest lands.

The potential impacts to the Kwakiutl traditional territory should trigger the Crown's duty to consult and accommodate in regard to their treaty rights. In fact, the Ministry of Forests did assure then Chief Councillor Marion Wright.

I would like to ask the minister what a deeper level of consultation is and what level of consultation he would deem appropriate on an issue that the first nation has raised as a concern for several months and has been advised legally that there are going to be serious concerns about. I would like to ask the minister: what level of consultation would be bona fide, genuine and in good faith in this instance?

Hon. M. de Jong: I appreciate the question, but I'm not in a position, either in the abstract or in the case that the member has a genuine interest in, to lay out a formula that can be applied across the board. I think a great deal of work has taken place and continues to take place in trying to develop a model that could be applied. But the complexities of that are such that I would not be doing service to that ongoing work involving the First Nations Leadership Council by suggesting here in the span of 30 or 40 seconds what I think appropriate levels of consultation are.

It will depend on a variety of circumstances: the nature of the activity being proposed, the strength of the claim — some very individualized and specific circumstances. I find myself at a disadvantage, though I appreciate the member's interest in the matter generally and in this specific case.

C. Trevena: The minister talks about in the abstract and in the particular. I know that the minister, as Minister of Forests and Range himself, had a similar case and also had a similar issue of consultation. What I'm getting to — and I think the minister is aware — is that what we have here…. I have in front of me a series of letters back and forth between the ministry, the government, the Crown and the first nations, which resulted, over a year after notification first came, in one meeting. At the end of that one meeting the decision was made.

I'm wanting to ask the minister whether a series of letters back and forth, through which — and I'm very happy to work through them with the minister — we're seeing a conversation about the need for consultation, about the need perhaps for financial assistance so that the first nation involved, the Kwakiutl band, can both do the research and ensure that it has the adequate capacity to deal with any consultation….

We have this going back and forth, and we have one meeting, and then after that the deal is signed off. The land is now out of the TFL, and the Crown has effectively said to the first nation: "Sorry, guys. This is it. It's handed out."

On this very specific one, I would like to know from the minister whether a series of letters over a year and one meeting does represent adequate consultation.

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm afraid the member has me at a slight disadvantage. I am not able, off the top of my head, to relate the specifics of the discussion, dialogue, consultation which took place in terms of either the correspondence or the meetings and/or the phone calls that may have taken place.

I can say, however — and this does draw on my experience in a former capacity with the Ministry of Forests — that my lasting impression is that the officials within the Forests Ministry take very seriously the legal obligations that exist as they relate to the obligation to consult and accommodate.

It was the seriousness with which they took those obligations that has prompted them to sign over a hundred agreements, which include revenue-sharing, resource allocation and, not insignificantly, specific consultation protocols. The member has correctly

pointed out a previous example where there was judicial intervention and a judicial pronouncement. But the minister then, the minister now and the officials within that ministry do everything they can to ensure that the legal obligations, as they understand them to be, are being discharged.

In fact, they go further. At the heart of the new relationship is the desire to ensure that we are working together to develop economic potential and economic opportunity and to ensure that there are clear lines of communication. All of that is very much at the heart of the new relationship and some of the other initiatives that are being developed.

I think the member was across the road at the longhouse a week or two ago when we signed a pilot agreement relating to one-window or one-stop referral. She may not have been, but that too was a very positive example of a significant step forward in trying to coordinate the consultation process.

The member knows — I think she does; she is thoughtful about these matters — that one of the great challenges that a lot of first nations are facing is the sheer volume of referrals that they are encountering. Government in its own way faces capacity issues, but people are understandably less sympathetic of the challenges facing big government.

First nations are encountering some difficulty and some challenge as it relates to dealing with those referrals, not just from forestry but from a broad range of sectors — whether it's tourism, other resource-related matters or land use planning processes.

The pilot agreement that was signed with the mid-Island in the Comox area was designed to bring some structure to that in a way that would allow a type of rating of what some of these referrals are — which ones require more attention, which ones are of more relevance or more importance to the first nations — and to try and coordinate that in a way that eliminates some of the duplication.

We are still, I think it's fair to say, in the early stages of working through, of operationalizing the obligations that we now know are there and that the courts have assisted all of us in defining and bringing some structure to. But it would be incorrect of me to suggest that all of the uncertainty or all of the bugs have been worked out in terms of seeing this through.

At the end of the day, of course, as I said earlier, there always does remain the possibility that no amount of discussion, dialogue or consultation would eliminate a fundamental difference of opinion that could exist. In those cases, the provincial government of the day is confronted by the need to make a decision that one hopes would enjoy a broad range of support from all parties, including affected first nations. But on occasion, that may not necessarily be the case.

C. Trevena: The minister has touched on a couple of issues. The issue of capacity is something that I would be very happy to talk about for some time. I don't think we can use up the whole of the estimates period through this.

I'm sure that the minister, like myself, has sat in many band offices where you can see the pile of referrals that come through from various ministries. The first nations themselves are looking and wondering how they're supposed to be dealing with all of these. So any assistance in providing those first nations with the capacity to deal with their referrals so that their aboriginal rights and titles are not infringed is a duty that we all need to recognize.

I notice that in a letter to the Kwakiutl band in May, there is a reference — because the band did say that they were very concerned about this and may not have the capacity to deal with it — that any assistance for capacity should be dealt with through the new relationship trust.

My initial question for the minister on this: is this the way that the bands are supposed to be dealing with this? Then I have subsequent questions from the minister's previous answer.

Hon. M. de Jong: It's one way. It goes to the heart of why the new relationship trust of $100 million was set up. I'm not sure in this case whether the first nation we are discussing has made application to the trust. But at the heart of the trust…. I hope and believe the member does understand that the trust was set up as a way to set aside a significant sum of money, $100 million, at arm's length from government, for which first nations themselves would exercise authority and jurisdiction.

I'm actually curious — and the member may be able to advise me, because I know she works closely on this matter with the first nation — whether they have made application to the new relationship trust.

C. Trevena: In this instance, I'm not sure whether the first nation did, because the first nation felt very pressured on this.

I'd like to ask a couple of other questions on the issue because the same letter from the Deputy Minister of Forests talks about the consultation process. It says that the consultation process includes providing information on the land removal and an opportunity to discuss how these decisions will impact the treaty rights. There is an opportunity to discuss with Western Forest Products staff the impact that the deletion of these lands may have on the exercise of treaty rights, and the discussions will set the stage for further consultation in the future regarding upcoming decisions on the Crown portion of the TFL. Government will continue to fulfil its legal obligations for consultation on these matters as they occur.

The minister talked in his previous answer about how courts have assisted in defining what consultation is. We have a glaringly similar example to this one, which occurred when the minister was the Minister of Forests and Range, at which point the courts said that the Crown didn't exercise its appropriate authority and that it was wrong. Yet in this, while we now have a Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation who was the previous Minister of Forests and Range, we see exactly the same process moving along.

I'd like to ask the minister how we are reconciling the lessons that we learned from the past with the actual activity that we are seeing today on the Island.

Hon. M. de Jong: We do learn. The decisions that have been handed down in various judicial pronouncements — decisions — are helpful in that respect.

Without in any way wanting to comment critically on court decisions, I have found in the past that the bench is frequently more comfortable talking about what is insufficient as opposed to what is sufficient. Nonetheless, they are discharging their judicial duties in the way that they believe is appropriate in government.

The departments of government, including the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations, examine those decisions very seriously. They are the subject of intense discussions at the working group that exists between government and the First Nations Leadership Council. We take those decisions very, very seriously, govern accordingly, conduct ourselves accordingly and, where necessary, make the adjustments in process that the decisions would seem to require.

Again, there is ample evidence in support of the proposition that this government not only acknowledges the obligations to consult and to accommodate in circumstances where that is appropriate but has acted on them and has been at the forefront in partnership with the Leadership Council in establishing procedures and models for ensuring that those obligations are discharged.

I wish I could say that, in so doing, every single transaction has met with a result that is hailed on all sides as a testament to the effectiveness of those processes. That is not the case, and it likely will not be the case because some of these are very difficult, complex issues and people and groups have differing opinions on what the outcome should be. But that is the joy of governing.

C. Trevena: I come back to the very fact that we have here a very significant issue for a first nation in the North Island — traditional land and their traditional territory. They were alerted to the potential that they may lose the rights to this land in a letter from the Ministry of Forests and a letter from Western Forest Products saying that these negotiations were going on.

There was then a series of letters and e-mails through one year, and then finally all parties managed to get together, managed to sit down for one meeting. It was on October 4, 2006, in Port Hardy, so it's well over a year since this was first raised.

There was one meeting, and after that meeting we got a clarification letter to the Kwakiutl band from the Ministry of Forests, explaining some queries to that, and that was the level of consultation. Of that, everything else that the band heard was that the deal was done.

They found out officially in February, some five months after this meeting, which they thought was the beginning of consultation. They heard in February…. The Minister of Forests wrote and said: "This is it." When he was further pressed, he said he couldn't reverse the decision.

I would like to go back to the fact that when we are dealing with significant issues and we are learning the whole ways of negotiation and ways of dealing with this new relationship…. I put to the minister that a series of letters and one meeting — that the first nation is under the impression is going to be the start of a series of meetings, in which they would get the response of some points of clarification….

I put to the minister that (1) this is not consultation and (2) having learned the lessons from the court, the minister should have at least intervened with his colleague the Minister of Forests and given him due warning that this had happened in the past and had been, to put it mildly, problematic for the government and that the government had been found to have abrogated its responsibilities.

Hon. M. de Jong: I'll answer this in two parts, and I may have some additional information for the member momentarily. I am advised, and I am relying on advice insofar as I was not party to the discussions, that the attempted consultation initially involved upwards of 23 first nations who were contacted. Sixteen of those first nations chose not to respond to the letter that the member, I think, referred to. Six of the first nations did.

The process, the time line around the process for consultation, I'm advised, was extended at least once — possibly more, but at least once. I'm advised that reasonable efforts were made to meet. The member has an opinion — and I'm interested to hear it, of course — about what may have constituted reasonable levels of consultation in this particular case. I again emphasize that the government generally and this ministry in particular take very seriously their legal duties on behalf of the Crown to consult and accommodate and seek, in every instance, to discharge those duties appropriately.

I should also note that my recollection of the…. I am now operating from memory relating to the decision that was ultimately made by the ministry with respect to the lands in question. It was that access for first nations — hunting and gathering rights — and access for cultural purposes were to continue so that specific attention was turned to the ongoing rights of the first nations involved.

C. Trevena: I'm very pleased that the minister has the numbers of the different first nations consulted.

I'm dealing very much with the Kwakiutl First Nation here, who have claimed rights over this territory. While there may have been some apparent delays, we are down to the fact that we have had a series of letters, some which may have got lost somewhere. As I say, I have a file which has some reference to some letters that the bands say they didn't receive and that the ministry says they sent. That was all clarified, but this all culminated in just the one meeting and then just the discussion through e-mail from the Ministry of Forests and Range which said that this is the way it is.

I would further like to ask the minister whether one meeting on something that…. The minister is very well aware of how sensitive these issues are at the moment for everyone in British Columbia. Everybody wants to make sure that we do find a way for the new relationship to work but also that treaties are resolved so that we and first nations can move forward. This is extremely sensitive.

The fact that the Kwakiutl First Nation is left with just one meeting and then a letter to clarify points of the meeting and then the final letters from the ministry…. I would like to ask the minister how this can be perceived by anyone as full consultation.

Hon. M. de Jong: Hon. Chair, apologies for the delay. I was just trying to get some additional information about the contact and discussions that took place.

I note that there was an initial letter. This is with the Kwakiutl First Nation in August of '05. I'm not sure if the member referred to correspondence prior to that time, but I have something dating back to August '05.

That letter was ultimately responded to in November of '05 from the chief councillor; a subsequent letter on February 20, 2006, from the Deputy Minister of Forests; a response to that on May 9, 2006; a subsequent letter to the first nation on May 31st; and another letter in September '06.

There is certainly a record, on the surface, of contact, of engagement. I note, as well, that when the decision ultimately was made, there was recognition given that the first nation used the areas involved for traditional purposes such as hunting, gathering, fishing. They were granted access to the lands for those purposes.

I think the member and I are destined perhaps to have a difference of opinion on whether or not the Crown has adequately discharged its responsibilities, and so be it. Again, though, I point out that the Crown takes very seriously those obligations and endeavours in every circumstance to ensure that the responsibility and legal obligations have been properly and completely discharged.

C. Trevena: I think that the minister has actually defined it quite well. There was a process of engagement, the minister said, which I think would differ in anybody's dictionary from a process of consultation. Yes, the first nation was engaged. The first nation was aware that there was the potential of this land being taken out of the TFL, that its traditional territory might have a change.

Having access to lands for cultural use or for hunting, I would believe, would be very different for a first nation than actually having its aboriginal right and title respected. Having access to it is slightly different than having it regarded as part of the first nation's traditional territory. I would suggest that we are in a position where, as in the previous case, the Crown has effectively extinguished the rights of this first nation.

I have written to the minister to ask for a meeting between the minister and the elected chief councillor, who is now Verna Chartrand. The elected chief councillor has also written to the Premier to ask for a meeting. I would hope that the minister would agree to a meeting with the elected chief to explain how this process of engagement has meant that the Kwakiutl's rights have been extinguished.

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for conveying the message. I should say on the record that I recall receiving her letter, I think a week or week and a half ago, in which she raised the issue of a meeting. I try to meet with as many leaders of first nations as is possible.

I'm looking forward, in the weeks and months ahead, to spending time outside of this city and, in fact, moving up the coast and up the Island. I'm hopeful, and I welcome the opportunity to sit down with the elected leadership of the first nation and other first nations along the west coast of British Columbia.

C. Trevena: I would hope that means that sometime this summer we can sit down together with the elected chief of the Kwakiutl First Nation and discuss this issue.

C. Trevena: Sorry, that was a question. I apologize, Mr. Chair. It was just a clarification. I can hear the minister talking about, as we all do, our hopes and desires for the few months when we're not in this House and how we want to make sure that our meeting schedule works. I would like to work with the minister's staff to ensure that there is a meeting taking place in Fort Rupert on this issue.

The Chair: Thank you, Member. I won't call the question quite yet. Minister?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm anxious that we do that work with a view to accomplishing that end as well.

C. Trevena: I have one last question of the minister in regard to consultation and accommodation before I hand the floor to my colleague from Powell River–Sunshine Coast, who is going to take this issue on a little further. This is quite an old issue, I believe, of consultation with the Mowachaht-Muchalaht First Nation on the real west coast of British Columbia. Recently a new aquaculture site was announced at Concepcion Point in Muchalat Inlet, which is the traditional territory of the Mowachaht-Muchalaht First Nation. In the announcement from the Minister of Agriculture there was a mention that discussions had been held between the province and the Mowachaht-Muchalaht First Nation before this went ahead.

I'm not sure whether the minister is aware of the difficulty that that first nation has had with fish farms. In fact, they took the issue of fish farms in their traditional territory to judicial review. When this latest one was approved it came, apparently, because the first nation were unable to take it to the next stage — basically,

taking the Crown to court on this — because they didn't have the financial capacity to do so.

Again, I would like to ask the minister: at what level does he place meaningful negotiations with first nations? At what stage does he see that there is no choice but for the Crown, through the government, to push ahead no matter what?

Hon. M. de Jong: That will depend, obviously, on the specific circumstances — the nature of the decision being considered, its potential impact on traditional lands, the strength of the claim in that area. A myriad of issues come into play and, again, the Crown seeks to balance all of those considerations and discharge its duties as required under the law and the constitution.

C. Trevena: My final question for the minister. So often we see first nations either…. When they're dealing with potential impacts to their traditional territories, they find that they don't have the capacity to deal with it. If they do have the capacity, they can take it to a certain level in the court process and then again it comes down to the fact that they don't have the money or the strength to fight. It's very sad that in so many cases it comes down to these things. One is that it becomes a fight; secondly, it has to be settled through the courts; and thirdly, the first nations tend to lose because they simply do not have the financial resources to take this on.

I would like to ask the minister whether there is a serious approach that is trying to reconcile these problems before they get to the court, so we don't come back year after year and ask these questions about first nations who've lost their rights to a title because they haven't had the money to fight them in court or because they've just been effectively bullied by the authorities into accepting. I'd like to ask the minister whether he is going to be addressing this.

Hon. M. de Jong: It's fair and appropriate for the member to come to this committee and pose these questions and to highlight situations in which she or others believe the obligation to consult has not been discharged. I will try to provide answers that indicate, in defence, why the Crown believes it has met its duties.

I will, though, take just a short opportunity to highlight, in support of the proposition that the Crown takes these duties very seriously, a number of examples where that is very much the case. I start with the Tahltan, start with the Taku River First Nation. I can talk at length about the central coast land use plan, the north coast land use plan — not just one-offs but grand examples of consultations involving a whole group, a whole range of stakeholders but, most assuredly, first nations with varied interests, varied perspectives.

The Olympic legacies, the four host first nations in whose traditional territory those events will take place — they're on board. They're excited. It's all because of the level of consultation, the extent of the consultation that has taken place. They feel part of it.

The member asks, I think sincerely: how can we be certain? What can we do to ensure that we don't have conversations like this in the future? In the near future I think we will. I don't want to pretend that the work that is taking place now, the important work, is going to suddenly crystallize into the nirvana of circumstances in which all of these issues disappear. It'd be nice, but my guess is that next year we'll have some examples where there has been frustration on the part of a party, and we'll talk about that.

The framework agreement, the working group with the Leadership Council, is fundamentally important. It addresses the heart of the issue we have been addressing here at this committee. How do we deal with this? How do we establish some principles, some frameworks, some methodologies that everyone can buy into as setting the standard? Everyone — first nations, government, third parties.

We haven't talked about this a lot from the perspective of third parties, who say: "We want to know." The member's colleague yesterday highlighted some of the frustration from people like the business council whose criticism is related — obviously, from a different perspective — but who also want to know when enough consultation is enough.

Between the work with the Leadership Council, the working group, the framework protocols that we're trying to establish, pilot projects like the Nanwakolas that we signed in the Comox area….

Think of this. This is an initiative where — directly to the member's point — the first nations involved have said: "We're going to come together. We're going to pool our resources, and in the relationship between us and government where that obligation to consult exists, we're going to have a place that you send referrals to — a central depot, if you will. We're going to start to prioritize them, we're going to start to sift through them, and we're going to do that work."

A big step for the first nations involved because, in a sense, they are vesting or delegating that organization some of their authority to say: "You help us make these decisions." I think it's realistic. I think it's the right way to go. I think it's a huge step forward.

Maybe this time next year we'll be able to undertake a little bit of an analysis of how successful it's been. If it has been, hopefully there has been some uptake elsewhere. I think there is interest elsewhere, certainly on Vancouver Island. On the central Island and north Island, people are watching very carefully to see if this is a model that can work and address some of those challenges.

For a small first nation with a relatively significant asserted traditional territory, the volume of these referrals can be very daunting. They can be very, very difficult.

So those are the kinds of initiatives that are underway — actual working on the ground — in addition to the myriad of other agreements that are in place and include specific consultation protocols. We're not by any means there yet, but compared to where we were four, five, six or seven years ago, boy, we're a long way further.

That, I think, is reflected in what we see happening on the land base — the land use plans for the central

and north coast being a prime example of that — and also in the activity and the situations in which third parties are now approaching first nations, and vice versa, directly and saying: "How do we work together? How do we confront government together to say that this is what we want to do as partners?" Boy, it's a remarkable scenario when government is now running to catch up and to make sure that the policy structures are in place that allow those kinds of partnerships to happen.

It's exciting. It's invigorating. It's at times challenging and frustrating. But with the goodwill and all of this happening against the backdrop of a genuine desire on the part of people to operate within the context of a new relationship, we are seeing in a myriad of different ways just how successful it can be. I for one — and I'm sure the member is — am very pleased about that.

G. Coons: Thank you, Minister, for coming in with your staff. I just have three or four areas of concern that I'd like to bring up. I guess the first one is that under the format of the new relationship, we all realize the optimism we have for Prince Rupert and the port development and where we're heading in that region.

But as we look at the Tsimshian Nations, the Lax Kw'alaams and the Metlakatla, they have strong thoughts that they haven't been accommodated or consulted by the federal government for phase 1. I believe that phase 2 will involve the ministry and the province as far as consultation and accommodation.

About a year ago I wrote to the Premier with concerns that the government and the ministries involved should take a leadership role in helping phase 1 come through. I'm just wondering, as far as phase 1 is concerned, if the government has had any involvement in that at all, and do you think they should have?

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for posing the question about a project that he and the government assign great importance to in terms of the province's overall economic strategy. It is a key component in the overall Pacific gateway strategy.

To the specifics of the member's question, let me say this. I have recently had discussions with people like Gerald Wesley, chief negotiator for the Tsimshian, and as a response to that have accepted an invitation to visit in the area later this summer. I'm not sure if it's June or July, but we do have, I believe, dates locked down. I want to take advantage of our time away from this place to garner a better firsthand impression of some of the challenges that people are encountering up there.

I do think that the member, though, correctly identifies one of the roles that this ministry, and the government generally, takes very seriously, and that is the liaison role we can play between first nations here in British Columbia and federal officials.

Part of our interest there is to help federal officials understand how it is that the new relationship is translated into a different way of conducting business, a different way of interacting with one another, and to convince the federal government that they now have — and forgive me if this sounds impersonal — a tool at their disposal that they would not have enjoyed earlier. That is the First Nations Leadership Council, which they should take advantage of as a way to engage at the highest levels with first nations in B.C.

That, of course, does not alter the responsibility that goes with dealing with individual first nations. But it is a way for the federal government to emphasize in not just a symbolic way but a very substantive way the importance they attach to the project and to fulfilling their obligations towards first nations in support of the project.

I am looking forward to being in the area. Maybe I'll see the member at his home later this summer. If I think of it, I'll make sure he's aware of the dates that we plan to be in the area.

G. Coons: Thank you for that, Minister. I look forward to that, because it's been well over a year. There are some feelings going on in the community and the region, as this is a vital component of what's going to happen in the northwest, right through the northwest corridor, and as the first nations have said they're angry at the treatment by the port authority and the federal government.

I believe that for quite a while now our government has had a leadership role, a mediator role, especially under the new relationship, as we try to get it out there and have people realize the purpose of it. So I look forward to that. And I look forward to the province being involved in phase 2 of the port and the consultations that are going to take part in that.

The second thing I would like to ask some questions about is the New Relationship Trust Corporation fund, the $100 million. I attended a couple of sessions, one on the Charlottes and one in Prince Rupert, when they were coming in and seeking consultation and, I guess, informing people of what the trust was about.

I'm just wondering. One of the objectives for the trust was to "increase the capacity of first nations to alleviate the adverse socioeconomic conditions within first nations communities."

I realize that the minister and his staff know that despite the good-news B.C. employment or unemployment rate…. In B.C. it's about 4 or 5 percent or around there, and on the North Coast–Nechako area it's double that, at about 8.6.

When we look at the first nations communities, especially in the Skeena Native Development Society area…. They put out their latest report, where the average unemployment rate in that region is 61.85 percent — just horrendous unemployment figures for first nations communities.

In the Nass Valley and the four communities it's close to 60 percent, and in the Tsimshian Nation it's about 67 percent, and so on. On the Charlottes, Haida Gwaii, it's 52 percent. But the key here in this whole

region, the Skeena Native Development Society region, which put out this report…. It's a horrifying 61.85-percent unemployment rate in first nations villages.

I'm just wondering. What is being done to alleviate the adverse socioeconomic conditions, especially in response to the $100 million trust fund?

Hon. M. de Jong: Thank you to the member for the question. I can assure him that at the heart of the work that is being undertaken, the new relationship, is the objective of alleviating precisely the kind of disparate conditions that the member has related to the committee. It is unacceptable. It has always been unacceptable, but it is now time to do something about those disparate economic indicators and those disparate social indicators around education, mortality, health.

Sorry, I should say that I'll answer the question about the trust, but I do want to assure the member that I view the trust as one part of an overall approach to this that includes the transformative change accord and included the Kelowna accord and the steps that have flowed from those meetings in Kelowna — the accords around health care and education. But for the moment I'll focus in on the trust.

As the member knows, $100 million provided to the board…. I do want to emphasize this — and I think the member knows this — but the trust operates arm's length from government. That was very key. Having provided the allocation, the government is now…. Except for, I believe, the two appointments that government makes, the board operates completely independently of government.

The member happily was at some of the meetings where the initial board began to receive some ideas and proposals. One of the things that I remember talking to Nathan Matthew about somewhere in the midst of that discussion…. His comment was something along the lines of, "It's a heck of a lot easier to ask for $100 million than to decide how to spend it," and he's right because it's a lot of money. It's a lot of resources. But, boy, the demands on that money will far outstrip the available funds.

The first phase of the work has been completed, and we've been advised that the trust plans to spend $20 million over the next three years: $6 million of that on capacity, $7.5 million on education, $5 million on culture and language, $750,000 on youth and elder and $1.5 million on specific economic development initiatives.

The trust, as the member knows, is governed by seven directors. I have those names for him, if he wishes them. Beyond that, I would say there are two dates of significance that one can look forward to. One is the issuance of the first annual report due July 31 in which the board and chair will report out in a formal sense.

Beyond that, there is another date. I'm not sure what it is, but I know it has either happened or is imminent — and that is, the issuance of the first cheque. Mr. Matthew alerted me, I think in February or March, that by about this time of year, they wanted to be in a position where they were putting that money to work in the way that it was designed to do.

I don't have information for the member on whether that first cheque has yet been issued, but if it has not, the date of issuance is, I'm assured, imminent.

G. Coons: Thank you for that, Minister. Yes, I've been following along on the website, and I'll look forward to that. Just a comment. In the meetings that I attended and the input that I had heard, there was a real concern about urban first nations and what was happening in that area.

Again, B.C. Stats indicates that the urban first nations unemployment rate is significantly higher than we see in the good-news stories. I hope that in forums like this we can get that point across and look at the issues, also, with urban first nations.

The last couple of issues I would like to deal with are dealing with some of the villages and concerns in the Nass Valley, especially with Highway 16 having the slide. For quite a while the Nass Valley, with the one road coming in by Lava Lake, which is the only way in and out of the Nass Valley…. They've had concerns about their emergency preparedness, about having another route.

Right now, the only route through there to get along Highway 16 to Terrace or Prince Rupert is through Cranberry Junction, the logging road up Highway 37. They've been trying to look at Cranberry Junction being designated as an emergency route. In case the Lava Lake road to Terrace floods like it has, they have an escape route out of the Nass Valley.

The situation that's just happening as we speak with the Cranberry Junction road being used as an emergency route to the coast…. I would hope that the ministry, in conjunction with the Transportation Ministry and other ministries, would work with the Nisga'a and the Nass Valley concerns about the emergency preparedness. That's just a comment, so you can comment on it.

The other, last thing I want to comment on is the status of the villages in the Nass Valley under the Nisga'a treaty. With respect, the Nisga'a villages…. Their status is equality to other B.C. municipalities. I don't have the letter. I'm trying to get this letter. The Ministry of Economic Development had accepted the Nisga'a villages as equal standing to municipalities.

I've talked to the Minister of Community Services, who indicated they really didn't have the process or the documentation to look at the status of the Nisga'a villages. I would hope that the minister, through his staff, could clarify that and look at the status of the Nass villages as equal to the municipalities. So if there are any comments on that…..

Hon. M. de Jong: To the member: first of all, I thank him for relating the issues and concerns. Happily, they are in this case very timely. I'm scheduled within the next ten days to sit down with President Leeson and members of the Nisga'a government, and I am sure we will discuss these issues and several others that I am aware of.

I've been on the Lava Lake road several times. I've actually been on the Cranberry Junction road on a day

when I decided the suspension in my vehicle deserved some punishment. It is, firstly, a remarkably beautiful area, but the travel can be challenging. Obviously, the Lava Lake road into Terrace has been significantly upgraded and there is now road access out to Kincolith, which, when I started visiting the area, there was not. So the infrastructure has developed.

Like any other community, the folks in Nass Camp and Kincolith in the Nass Valley and New Aiyansh will want to know they have reliable access in and out of their community, but I'll pursue that with the government.

It's the first time I've heard about the issue around community status, so I'll explore that as well. I know there is regional district membership and participation. If there are issues that go beyond that….

I was at a UBCM meeting the other day and made the point that I thought that organization should logically be looking at first nations as an opportunity to expand their numbers. This is the new generation of community in British Columbia, and there is, I think, an opportunity to breathe some new life into the UBCM by taking advantage of the fact that these communities are out there. So I'll pursue that as well.

I will lastly say that we are now at a point where it is possible to look back on nearly ten years of experience under the Nisga'a treaty. The member may have some views on this, but on balance, my impression is that it has been an entirely positive experience. Not without challenges, and there will always be those, but for the people of the Nisga'a, of the Nass Valley, they continue to take great pride in the fact that they signed a treaty. They now have a parliament up and running.

I believe the Nisga'a are playing host to this summer's meetings of the First Nations Summit which is going to be there. I think that is tremendous. You know, I say these things, recognizing that at the time of the treaty I was a member of the opposition and took a position on the treaty and criticized various aspects of it. But on balance over the past decade, I see that it is an instrument that has worked very well, that I think British Columbians can be proud of.

I'm hopeful that this time next year we may be in a position to speak about several other first nations who are members of what at the moment would be an exclusive club but over time we hope will be less exclusive — those first nations with whom we do have modern treaties in British Columbia.

N. Simons: My first question relates to the Sliammon Nation of Powell River and the traditional territory around there. What is the current status in terms of the discussions over consultation and aquaculture?

Hon. M. de Jong: I want to tell the member that the information I have readily at my disposal relates more particularly to the treaty discussions that are taking place. I'm happy to engage in discussion with him. I don't think that answers the specifics of his question, so he may need to provide me with some time to obtain more specific information.

At this point, I'm probably left to advise him about the seriousness with which the Crown takes its obligations, but I suspect that would also not satisfy his specific interest in the present status of the matter.

N. Simons: Fair enough. I didn't mean to be vague, but there was a discussion about court action taking place with the Sliammon Nation, upset about consultation process around the issuance of geoduck aquaculture licences without adequate consultation. It was stated on the record on numerous occasions that the consultation was inadequate. In fact, it was characterized in various ways.

I'm just wondering if there is currently…. Maybe this will give the minister the answer he might need: perhaps it is before the courts. Can the minister tell us whether it's before the courts now or not?

Hon. M. de Jong: Off the top of my head, I thought a writ had been filed, but we're just endeavouring to confirm that.

N. Simons: In that case, I'll move on to an area where we might be able to get some…. There is a specific issue facing the people of the Kingcome Inlet area, Gwa-yi and the road. I'm wondering if there's been any discussion or anything to relate in a positive or negative vein with respect to allowing the community members to access their community in a safe manner?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think it's a good-news story, so I thank the member for raising it.

One of the first things I did when I received the assignment to pursue ministerial duties in this department of government was to attend a meeting of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs with the Premier. I'm not sure if the member was at that meeting or not. I can't recall. He may have been.

The chief of the Tsawataineuk made the point that sort of resonated with me, which was that for a good portion of the year this is a community that doesn't have reliable access out of the community. It's water-based, and we all saw this winter just how fraught with difficulty and, at times, danger that can be.

I said to the member's colleague yesterday that I think it is reasonable for us to be establishing as a clear objective the notion that communities in B.C., first nations and otherwise, should have minimal levels of infrastructure. Included in those minimal levels is the ability to get in and out of their communities on a reliable basis. That doesn't mean airplanes and helicopters because most people can't afford that.

So we went to work on this. I'm not sure how up-to-date the member is, but I can provide him with this update. The Department of Indian and Northern Affairs…. We coordinated with them so we had the money to build a road.

An issue developed around access and which side of the inlet and the Nature Trust was involved. I'm happy to advise the member that an agreement-in-

principle has been struck with the Nature Trust. There's a working group involving the first nation, Canada and the province. Design work on the road is being finalized. The rights-of-way will be finalized thereafter.

I suppose the only disappointment I have is that I had set as an objective to have this road under construction this summer. I am told, most recently a few moments ago, that because of some unique concerns, considerations and logistical matters, they can't construct during the winter. So the objective now is to have the design finalized this fall and to begin construction first thing in the spring of '08.

N. Simons: That is good news for the community members who lost family members, and I'm pleased to have the update. I thought maybe, in the spirit of the minister telling us all the good things about the Nisga'a treaty, I would actually bring up something that he could say a positive response to. I'm not sure if we're even, but that's a good start.

C. Evans: They're paying you to argue with him, not to say what a good guy he is.

The minister mentioned the importance, obviously, of addressing some of the social concerns in first nations communities and that there were a number of initiatives including something called the transformative change accord, the Kelowna accord and the Tsawwassen accord. I'm wondering where the Tsawwassen accord fits into that whole scheme of things and whether or not….

Maybe the minister could outline how he expects the capacity-building and the enhancing of human resources capacity is going to be completed or even attempted with what he has acknowledged as being insufficient funds under the $100 million new relationship trust. If in fact their primary goals are enhancement of community capacity to deal with such things as referrals and not to rely on outside experts all the time, how is it that the first nations communities across the province are going to benefit from $20 million a year over three years to achieve even part of that goal?

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for the question. I believe that the member's question was not designed to represent a criticism of the $100 million new relationship trust. It is correct, I think, to point to the fact that that sum of money, as significant as it is, does not represent an ultimate solution to all of the challenges that people face.

Nonetheless, I am hopeful that the member will at least accept the proposition that we are better off with a $100 million new relationship trust than we are without it. Yes, there are some difficult decisions that will have to be made by the board of trustees about how to allocate that money: what part of the capital to spend and what part to leave as an endowment for future investments.

However, I think the challenge goes beyond any specific amount of money. We talked about this. I can't remember if the member was here earlier in the day when we talked about this, but the combination of the work being undertaken by the First Nations Leadership Council, the working group specifically addressing the questions of consultation protocols and accommodation models, is fundamentally important in trying to bring a sense of structure and predictability to the discourse that now takes place regularly in a variety of circumstances.

I think the member will agree that it is possible to think of these issues in a variety of different ways. There are referrals that relate to relatively mundane procedural matters that do not require anywhere near the attention that a much larger proposal involving use of resources, allocations of resources or access to land does. So part of the balance and the objective behind what the working group is doing is to say: "How do we categorize these things so that people — all of us with limited resources — can devote the attention we need to in the right areas?"

Again, this is an approach that I referred to earlier with the kinds of pilot agreements that we have seen to develop a process where people can pool their resources — where referrals can come in, a group of first nations can assign responsibility, delegate responsibility to an agency that they have confidence in to categorize and process these things and in that way find some efficiencies.

I am satisfied that if we believe that we can develop a system in which a relatively small group — in some cases less than 200 people — is going to be left to its own devices to manage referrals that in some cases can number in the hundreds, then that is a recipe for failure. That will cause consternation and frustration and, ultimately, delay our ability to realize the objective that we all have, which is to develop this potential, develop this economic capacity, marshal our collective resources, bridge the socioeconomic gap and create in first nations communities the same sense of hope and promise that all of us expect in all of our communities. Easier to say than do, but I think we've begun down that path at least.

N. Simons: Well, I didn't see the relevance in the minister's response to my question, but fair enough. He might not have seen the relevance in my question, but I'm talking about social conditions that exist in first nations communities right now that have not gotten better in the last six years. I don't want the minister to presuppose what I think about anything, because I can't presuppose what he thinks about anything, either, when you listen to him waxing eloquently about the Nisga'a treaty.

What we need to be discussing is whether or not the $100 million is actually just something to look at and say, "We're dealing with that with $100 million"; meanwhile, back on the reserves and in the first nations communities we're still dealing with the same kind of tragic social conditions that are not going to be affected

I think the laudable goal of increasing capacity and allowing the first nations to have some sort of equality and collaborative process…. Right now there is no collaboration, because it's unequal. Right now there is a sense of dissatisfaction among the first nations that I speak to that has not been reflected in the minister's comments.

There is extreme concern about what is being called the new relationship. Some people are calling it the old abusive relationship, or a new abusive relationship, and that's not right. If the minister doesn't recognize that first nations across this province are worried, concerned about communities turning against each other for the scarce resources that exist to provide them with the necessary tools to negotiate, to deal with this government, then we have a problem on our hands. The new relationship needs to be addressed. The new relationship needs to be looked at closely to in fact determine whether or not it's simply an old relationship under a new name.

Madam Chair, it takes eight minutes to answer a question about a road, nine minutes to answer a question about a geoduck application. Quite frankly, I think that it's disappointing. It's disappointing that what we get is a minister who takes his time to laugh about questions and talk among themselves when there are questions about important issues of social concern in first nations communities.

Unfortunately, because of the time factor I haven't been able to get anything really going with the minister. I think that there's probably a good reason for that. Unfortunately, I have to leave my questions at that and cede the floor to the member opposite.

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm sorry that the member persists at every occasion in trying to leave the impression that others don't take seriously either the issues or the questions that he brings. If that is so at times — and it is not, in this case — perhaps it is because of the manner in which the member apparently feels compelled to wrap up his submission.

If the member wants to have a discussion about these issues, I am more than willing to do so here or in the other chamber. Why…?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, the member now mutters about time, and a moment ago he was chastising me for trying to answer questions as best I can. It is very, very difficult with this member, Madam Chair, to understand just what it is he is looking for. But I am going to take a little bit of time, and if he thinks it's a waste of time, that's fine. That's for him to think.

Hon. M. de Jong: I met with the leadership council. Apparently, the member does believe it's a waste of time. Nonetheless, I will place my comments on the record.

The leadership council described the new relationship in this way. They emphasized to me that their colleagues across the country, the chiefs in Quebec and in the Maritimes, are now approaching their governments saying: "We want you to emulate what is taking place in British Columbia." I don't say that as a way to suggest that we've got it perfect, that all of the problems are disappearing.

For the life of me, I don't understand why a member of the Legislative Assembly who wants to be taken seriously…. Quite frankly, as time goes by, this member puts himself in a position where very few of his colleagues do take him seriously because of the type of commentary we just heard. People….

Hon. M. de Jong: What's instructive to me is to hear that kind of observation from representatives on the First Nations Leadership Council and to hear that they are being told across the country of the regard others have for what is taking place here in British Columbia.

Apparently, that is not relevant to the member we just heard from. I'm sorry that is so. I'm sorry he places so little import on and has so little interest in what others are saying about what is taking place in British Columbia.

He didn't, apparently, want to talk about some of the agreements that have recently been signed. He professes to have an interest in things like education. Well, we signed an agreement on education. We've signed an agreement with first nations and the federal government.

I'm surprised that the member from Powell River chose not to talk about how graduation rates are improving, about how unemployment rates are improving.

I suppose, if your purpose is simply to cast aspersions on the intentions of others, you're really not that interested in the facts. You're really not that interested in canvassing in detail what is taking place.

I guess the member didn't want to talk about the first nations health plan which has led to the injection of an additional $15 million that received enthusiastic support from first nations and is designed to address some of those very disturbing social gaps that have plagued aboriginal communities for so many decades, so many years. It seems disingenuous to me that the member from Powell River would make the kinds of comments that he did and not want to engage in a discussion or not want to acknowledge that very important step that has been made.

The real progress, things like the devolution of off-reserve housing stock to the aboriginal authority — what is the value of that? Well, you can try to quantify it in terms of millions of dollars, but I think the value goes far beyond that. The member from Powell River didn't want to talk about that. Maybe he has thoughts on how that could be utilized or done better, but disappointingly, from my perspective, he seemed far more

interested in making some blanket political assertion, not wanting to engage in a discussion about the facts. Again, I think that speaks volumes about what the real intentions might have been on the part of the member from Powell River.

The post-secondary strategy — $65 million…. I'm shocked that, having revealed what he would like us to believe are his concerns, the member from Powell River on behalf of his caucus chooses simply to ignore that. Maybe he wants to criticize it. Well, that's fine. That's why we're here having a discussion, but he doesn't want to get into a discussion about the details. Perhaps he feels himself ill-equipped to do so. Perhaps a discussion of that sort doesn't lend itself to the kinds of general political posturing that he has become renowned for in these precincts.

Revenue-sharing. The member from Powell River talks about resources and apparently dismisses the significance of the $100 million new relationship trust. I dare say I have not heard from one single member of the first nations who characterizes the new relationship trust in the manner that I think I heard the member from Powell River do. It sounds like he believes that it is of limited consequence. That's his view. Thank goodness he wasn't in a position to make decisions. Apparently, if he were, the new relationship trust, the $100 million vested in the control of aboriginal peoples, wouldn't exist. That's very sad. I'd have welcomed an opportunity to engage in a discussion on that point.

Revenue-sharing to the tune of $166 million, nowhere else in the country…. Resource-based revenue-sharing, forestry revenues, agreements in the oil and gas sector…. It would have been interesting to hear, from a member who purports to dismiss in a rather cavalier manner the unbelievable progress that has been made, what his views on revenue-sharing are, or whether he has any views. Maybe he doesn't. Maybe he is as equally dismissive of that important step as he is of other developments that have taken place.

Not, I'm sorry to say, a very complimentary example or performance by an hon. member who would have us believe that he has insight and a positive contribution to make, when the evidence we have seen here today is very much to the contrary. Happily, there have been others who, though we may have differed in our approaches and our analyses, have been more forthcoming in presenting ideas, as opposed to mere political posturing.

It is disappointing because it reveals a lot about the member, and it reveals a lot about the level of seriousness that I and we in this chamber should attach to the comments that he makes. As I say, there are others who I know wish to engage in this matter, but I do note the hour. I don't know if we want to begin that process now.

Madam Chair, why don't I move that we rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

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