Hansard — Tuesday, May 29, 2007 p.m.

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page


Introductions by Members		8301

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		8301
	Home Inspection Act, 2007 (Bill M220)
	D. Thorne
	Local Government Conflict of Interest Act, 2007 (Bill M221)
	M. Sather

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		8302
	Texas and Kelowna police cancer fundraiser
	S. Hawkins
	Rick Hansen Wheels in Motion fundraising events
	J. Horgan
	Terry Fox Foundation fundraising events
	H. Bloy
	Clinton Annual Ball
	C. Wyse
	Heights neighbourhood Hats Off Day celebration
	R. Lee
	Seniors service organizations
	K. Conroy

Oral Questions		8304
	Government responsibility for lottery regulation
	C. James
	Hon. J. Les
	G. Gentner
	B. Ralston
	S. Simpson
	Performance bonus for B.C. Lottery Corporation CEO
	R. Fleming
	Hon. J. Les
	J. Kwan
	Solicitor General response to B.C. Lottery Corporation issues
	D. Chudnovsky
	Hon. J. Les
	B. Simpson
	Performance bonus for B.C. Lottery Corporation CEO
	B. Simpson
	Hon. J. Les
	Impact of Canada line construction on Cambie Street businesses
	G. Robertson
	Hon. K. Falcon
	Out-of-province medical expenses for Creston family
	C. Evans
	Hon. G. Abbott

Point of Privilege		8309
	D. Chudnovsky

Petitions		8309
	N. Simons
	J. Horgan
	C. Trevena
	B. Simpson
	G. Coons

Committee of Supply		8309
	Estimates: Office of the Premier (continued)
	C. James
	Hon. G. Campbell

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		8329
	Estimates: Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation (continued)
	S. Fraser
	D. MacKay
	Hon. M. de Jong
	C. Wyse
	S. Simpson
	J. Horgan
	G. Gentner

C. James: In the House today we have a couple of Victoria–Beacon Hill constituents. We have Erik Kaye, his wife Nancy Singh and their son Ravi. Visiting them from California are Ravi's grandparents Daljit and Katherine Singh and his great-grandmother Laverne Lowe. Would the House please join me in welcoming all of them and also wishing Ravi a very happy first birthday.

R. Lee: In the gallery today we have three distinguished visitors from the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Vancouver. Taiwan is our fifth trading partner. Last year exports from British Columbia to Taiwan reached $535 million, the highest ever.

Would the House please join me in giving the warmest welcome to the new Director General Chung-Chen Kung and his wife Mrs. Triffie Kung, as well as Deputy Director General Jeffrey Kau, on their first visit to this House.

L. Krog: I would like to introduce to the House Nelson and Donna Allen, son Blair and daughter Barbara. Nelson and Donna have the distinction of being the dynamic duo of the Nanaimo school board. They're both school trustees in our city and community activists. I'd like the House to please make them welcome.

R. Sultan: In the precinct today are 33 grade 5 students and their teacher Ms. Milva Barichello of Holy Trinity Elementary School in my riding. Since it was founded 50 years ago by Father Kilty, this school has been tending to the intellectual, physical and spiritual needs of its students very well. I'm looking forward to meeting them later. I ask the House to join me in making them welcome.

M. Farnworth: On behalf of our caucus, it's my pleasure to introduce 47 individuals who work hard so that we can do our jobs effectively here. Those are our constituency assistants, who are over here in Victoria for their annual conference.

I'd also like at this point to let the House know that one of those constituents — the individual who works for me — a young man named Mr. Brad West, is celebrating his 22nd birthday.

V. Roddick: In the gallery today are Genevieve Jin Liang Cote and her mother Angie. Genevieve is a grade 4 student at Delta Christian School in Ladner, where she's studying about our federal, provincial and municipal governments.

To quote her mother: "She thought it would be a cool plan to visit the Legislature today, on her ninth birthday." I would like to say that the enthusiastic birthday choir in the dining room earlier was fantastic. Will the House please make them both very welcome.

D. Chudnovsky: Today visiting us in the House are students from McBride Elementary School and their teacher Mr. Hartney. These students go to school and live in the very finest constituency in British Columbia — that would be Vancouver-Kensington — and I hope everyone will make them welcome.

S. Hawkins: On behalf of Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce Doug and Diane Corbishley, who are in the gallery this afternoon. Doug and Diane are visiting from Okanagan Falls. They are constituents of Mr. Speaker and were his guests for lunch today. Will all members please join me in making them feel welcome.

Hon. L. Reid: In the precincts today are 50 students from McNair Secondary School in my riding. I would ask the House please make them welcome. They're joined by their teacher Ms. Scarr.

J. Brar: Visiting us today are 41 students from Surrey Khalsa School. They're accompanied by two teachers, Vasanthi T and Rana Phull. I would like to ask the House to please make them feel welcome.

R. Hawes: Today in the gallery I also have some visitors — 28 grade 5 students from Cherry Hill Elementary School that are accompanied by their teachers Joanne Heron and Kate Ross. Could the House please make them welcome.

D. Thorne: I move introduction of the Home Inspection Act, 2007, for first reading.

D. Thorne: The purchase of a new home is the largest transaction that most consumers will ever make, and the quality and durability of a home is integral to the consumer's physical, mental and financial well-being. Few homebuyers have the technical knowledge for complete assessment of a new home or homebuilder, particularly given the complexity of current construction methods and codes.

B.C. homebuyers hire home inspectors to tell them if their new home is a good, solid investment. Unfortunately, because B.C. has no home inspection regulations, anyone can claim to be a certified home inspector, and that's a big risk for consumers.

I am introducing this private member's bill because I believe that government does have a responsibility to protect consumers from unscrupulous and fraudulent persons who may only have a home inspector licence because they purchased it on the Internet. This bill will establish the first home inspection board in Canada, which will establish standards of practice and basic requirements for licensed home inspectors.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage all members of this House to support regulation for home inspection. I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M220, Home Inspection Act, 2007, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

M. Sather presented a bill intituled Local Government Conflict of Interest Act, 2007.

M. Sather: I move introduction of the Local Government Conflict of Interest Act for first reading.

M. Sather: It gives me great pleasure to introduce the Local Government Conflict of Interest Act, 2007. This act would amend the Community Charter by adding a section entitled "Restrictions on benefiting from rezoning decisions."

The amendment states that a council member must not realize a pecuniary benefit from the sale of property, the rezoning of which was voted on by the council member. A former council member must not realize a pecuniary benefit from the sale of property, the rezoning of which was voted on by the council member, for a period of two years after leaving office. A person who contravenes this section is disqualified from holding office on a local government for three years from the date of the vote to which the disqualification relates.

Mr. Speaker, for far too long elected officials at the local government level have been able to benefit financially from rezoning decisions they participated in on council. The law currently requires a member of council to not vote or participate in the discussion of a motion where they have a current conflict of interest.

Unfortunately, this does not prevent them from benefiting in the future from the decisions they participate in on council. For example, an active realtor on a council can vote to rezone property to a higher value. That person can subsequently participate in the sale of the rezoned property, thus gaining a financial benefit as a result of a council decision they participated in.

The public is aware of this conflict situation and are often astounded that it is permitted. This bill will correct the conflict and provide the public greater confidence in the conduct of local government.

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M221, Local Government Conflict of Interest Act, 2007, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

S. Hawkins: Last June a bike relay team from the Houston, Texas, police department rode into Victoria to celebrate their 25th annual bike relay to benefit leukemia and lymphoma research. They were honoured by President Bush in the Rose Garden, and this year the President's mother Barbara Bush is the honorary chair of their ride.

I was so inspired last year by these cops from Texas that I introduced them to Cops for Kids in Kelowna. Kelowna Cops for Kids is a local charity organized by our RCMP, which focuses on raising funds for families in Kelowna and the Okanagan who have a seriously ill or disabled child.

Together the Houston police department and our Kelowna Cops for Kids will leave on June 12 from NASA, Texas, to NASA, Florida, on a bike relay to benefit leukemia research and Cops for Kids. As the honorary chair of the Team Canada NASA to NASA ride, I'll be cheering on our riders — Brad Field; John MacKay; Roger Soar; Kelly Murphy, who is injured now, unfortunately; Mark Hickman; and Brent St. John — who will cover 2,000 miles in six days and 100-plus degree weather.

We've raised over $35,000 for this ride, but the best part is that the Houston police department and Cops for Kids will ride from Texas to Kelowna in June 2008. We look forward to giving them a great big welcome to wine country.

Of course, the very reason we ride is to help children like Connor Fennessy. Connor has been on chemo and radiation for a year, battling Ewing sarcoma bone cancer. Last week Connor was told the cancer had spread, and as I speak, he's having an amputation of his leg — 16 years old, a very brave and courageous kid.

I ask the House to honour Kelowna Cops for Kids and the Houston police department bike relay team for bringing the cure 2,000 miles closer for kids like Connor.

J. Horgan: It has been 20 years since a young man from Williams Lake returned from the most incredible world tour ever undertaken. After two years, two months and two days, through 32 countries and over 40,000 kilometres, Rick Hansen wheeled into the hearts and minds of all Canadians.

Hero is a word often overused, but in the case of Rick Hansen it is fitting. His contribution to spinal cord research and his role as an ambassador for commitment and perseverance put him in a league of his own.

Spinal cord injury can happen to any one at any time. The impact of SCI on individuals and families is enormous, but because of Rick Hansen and his Wheels in Motion tour, tremendous strides have been made right here in British Columbia with respect to spinal cord research. Equally important has been the transformation in how the able-bodied see and deal with challenges of accessibility faced by citizens in wheelchairs.

It's been 20 years this past week since Rick returned triumphantly to Vancouver, but his work and the work of many thousands of others continues to this day. June 10 marks the fifth anniversary of the Rick Hansen Wheels in Motion event, where Canadians in 140 cities — 45 right here in British Columbia — come together to raise money and awareness for spinal cord injuries.

I invite members of this House and those watching at home to contact their local organizing committees and sign up to participate in this year's event. Come and wheel, roll, ride or walk in your local area, and support research and community accessibility.

Here in Victoria the event begins at Ogden Point, with registration at 11 a.m. and the event rolling up Dallas Road at noon. In Duncan people can gather at city square early in the day to watch or participate in the annual wheelchair rugby event. For more information, please visit www.rickhansen.com and just click on Wheels in Motion.

I challenge all members of this House to make June 10 the most successful event to date. Get out and support Rick Hansen and spinal cord injuries in your community.

H. Bloy: It's a pleasure to be here today to speak about the Terry Fox Foundation. Terry Fox was raised in Port Coquitlam, British Columbia. He was only 18 years of age when he was diagnosed with cancer, and he was forced to have his right leg amputated above the knee.

While Terry was in hospital, he was so overcome by the suffering of other cancer patients — many of them being young children — that he decided to run across Canada to raise money for cancer research. He called his journey the Marathon of Hope.

Terry passed away on June 28, 1981, at the age of 22. This heroic Canadian was gone, but his legacy was just beginning. Each year thousands of Canadians organize and take part in non-competitive Terry Fox runs in Canada and around the world, raising money for cancer research.

This year the Terry Fox Run takes place on September 16, and I encourage everyone to partake in the run. I remember running in the very first run in New Westminster at Queen's Park.

This year on September 14, the Terry Fox Foundation is introducing a new national fundraising opportunity for workplaces called "The Terry Fox at Work Day." Workplaces and businesses across the country will be holding cancer fundraising events of their choice, with the feature event being the Great Canadian Head Shave. I look forward to seeing many of my colleagues improve their looks with a clean-shaven head.

I hope that you will all join me in this Great Canadian Head Shave on September 14 and also the Terry Fox Run on September 16 to raise money in this fight against this very terrible disease. I will be sending information to all members of the House.

C. Wyse: I rise today to tell the House about the longest-running event in Canadian history that takes place annually in the small community of Clinton on Highway 97 in my constituency of Cariboo South. That event is known far and wide as the Clinton Ball. It has taken place continuously since 1868 through two world wars and the Great Depression. Through the good times and the hard times, the Clinton Ball has been held each year, and its longevity is a tribute to the citizens of that community.

On the recent May long weekend my wife and I joined guests from around B.C. to celebrate the 140th anniversary of the ball. In 1868 the first grand ball was held in the Clinton Hotel, considered to be the biggest and best hotel on the Cariboo Road during the gold rush.

In those early days the ball was established as a way to help recent arrivals feel more comfortable in their new homes and was the culmination of several days of celebration. Guests travelled to the ball from as far away as San Francisco and Chicago, and women wore their finest ball gowns for the occasion.

Today the Clinton Ball committee, headed by Mrs. Doris Gates, continues to make guests feel most welcome in their community. They decorate the community hall on a theme, and many of the guests arrive in period costume. Given the committee's successful planning and organizing, the event sells out quickly. I, like many other guests, have already purchased my ticket for next year.

I ask the House to join with me in recognizing the volunteer spirit of the citizens of Clinton. Their commitment ensures the continued success of this historical Canadian event, the Clinton Ball.

R. Lee: The Heights is a vibrant neighbourhood in my community of North Burnaby. It has beautiful views, parks and trails, recreational amenities and a thriving business district, all within walking distance. The Heights commercial district has been a special outdoor shopping area for nearly 100 years now.

Today Burnaby's diversity is very apparent in this distinct and historic section of Hastings Street. Heights merchants are well known for welcoming their

customers as family, and it's in this spirit that they welcome everyone to the Heights.

The first Saturday in June every year is Hats Off Day in the Heights. It is the day of the year when the merchants of the Heights shopping district show their appreciation for their customers and the community. Hats Off Day is a huge one-day extravaganza featuring a colourful parade with real local flavour and a big street party, where all of the merchants are out in front with treats, giveaways, draws, prizes and special promotions.

The event is so named as Heights merchants take their hats off to their customers and to the community during this all-day celebration. Voted Burnaby's best festival by Burnaby Now readers for the last three years, this year's event will take place this Saturday, June 2 from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m.

Included in this event is the Hats Off Day parade with the popular motorcycle brigade to start the festivities and the annual show-and-shine, displaying some of the lower mainland's oldest and unique vehicles in a three-block-long car show.

I would like to encourage everyone to come out to Hats Off Day and enjoy this day of celebration with the Heights community of Burnaby North.

K. Conroy: As the session draws to a close, I would like to take the opportunity to acknowledge a number of groups in my constituency and across the province who work hard on behalf of seniors, and all of us actually. The hard-working provincial coalition of COSCO, the Council of Senior Citizens Organizations of B.C., who advocate continually on seniors' behalf, have implemented a health promotion project helping seniors across the province.

I recently met with Rudy Lawrence, Art Kube and Bill Steemson to discuss this and other issues. The three were in Castlegar sharing information at the Conversation on Health.

I want to take a moment to personally thank Bill Steemson, who not only came to Castlegar with Art and Rudy but has been at every single Conversation on Health held across the province. At all of them he made sure that seniors issues were raised as he greeted the people going into the conversations. That is an incredible commitment for a volunteer.

Locally in my constituency there are a number of groups who also have contributed significantly to seniors health and well-being over the past year — so many that I can't name them all in two minutes.

But I do want to acknowledge the ongoing work of the women's hospital auxiliary groups, the seniors involved in coordinating seniors centres and some specific ones, like the health watch groups who sponsored the excellent research project showing the need of seniors in our region.

One other group I also want to acknowledge is the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Seniors, who have worked tirelessly to ensure that seniors in the Greater Trail district receive the care and respect they deserve.

One last group I want to acknowledge and thank is a group of people who advocate not only for seniors across the province but for all constituents. These would be the unsung heroes who work hard to make sure that all of the day-to-day problems and issues that arise in our constituencies are solved. They work with us every day and sometimes at night to ensure that we get our job done.

I want to thank our constituency assistants, whose untiring commitment to their jobs and to the people of this province often doesn't get the recognition it so justly deserves.

C. James: Last December the Solicitor General told the public that all gaming systems in B.C. were "subject to rigorous and extensive testing, and no issues have surfaced." Well, today we learned that wasn't true. The Lottery Corporation knew there were huge problems and did nothing, and the minister's investigation was simply a whitewash.

To the Premier: why, from the minister on down, is no one being held accountable for this cover-up?

Hon. J. Les: Today the Ombudsman has released her report in terms of the lottery operations of the B.C. Lottery Corporation. She has found a number of shortcomings. She has made 27 recommendations. Those recommendations are all accepted by government, and they will be implemented as soon as possible.

C. James: Well, the Ombudsman report goes beyond saying shortcomings. The Ombudsman report points out incompetence by this government and B.C. Lottery Corporation. The government knew that consumers were at risk of fraud and theft and did nothing.

Again to the Premier: given that the minister and his team are the ones responsible for putting people's money at risk, why are they being entrusted to fix the mess that they created? Why is the Premier letting everyone off the hook? When will he hold the minister accountable for this cover-up?

Hon. J. Les: I've already said earlier today that these results are clearly unacceptable. They're unacceptable to me, they're unacceptable to my colleagues, and they will be fixed. Not only are all of the recommendations going to be implemented by this government and by the B.C. Lottery Corporation, but we are also going to have an outside auditor come in to

review the operations of the Lottery Corporation and the gaming policy and enforcement branch to ensure that in the future these circumstances do not occur again.

C. James: It's fine for the minister to say that the recommendations are important and the findings are unacceptable. We heard the head of the Lottery Corporation say that he was sorry. That's all fine, but that still leaves the question: who is responsible, and what is the government going to do about it? It doesn't change the fact that this government did a review and found that everything was fine.

My question again is to the Premier. Where does the buck stop? If the minister isn't responsible, if the head of the B.C. Lottery Corporation isn't responsible, then who on earth in government is responsible for this scandal?

Hon. J. Les: I've already said that all of the recommendations made by the Ombudsman are going to be implemented, and we're going to conduct a review.

The Leader of the Opposition, of course, would like to paint a picture that the entire operation of the Lottery Corporation is suspect here. I would like to draw the opposition leader's attention to a report by the Auditor General of about 18 months ago on the casino operations of the B.C. Lottery Corporation. The then Auditor General made some very complimentary observations with respect to the operation of B.C. Lottery Corporation and casinos in this province.

G. Gentner: The Solicitor General suggests that the B.C. Lottery Corporation is suspect. Hon. Speaker, it's the ministry that is suspect. The minister wants to roll the dice on casinos. We'll definitely do that too, but we've got a lot of talk on that one as well.

It is clear from the investigation that British Columbians cannot have any faith in the government's ability to protect them from fraud. Can the Solicitor General tell us why British Columbians should trust him when he kept them in the dark about being ripped off?

Hon. J. Les: Well, it's always interesting to get a lecture from the NDP on gaming issues.

Hon. J. Les: Well, Mr. Speaker, I was about to remind members of the House that it was actually the New Democratic Party that ran a crooked bingo operation not that many years ago.

Hon. J. Les: As I've said, this is about the lottery ticket validation procedures of the B.C. Lottery Corporation. We appreciate the recommendations made by the Ombudsman, and they are going to be implemented as soon as possible.

G. Gentner: …is ultimately responsible for gaming policy and enforcement, the B.C. Lottery Corporation and consumer protection. He wears many hats. He's not only the enforcer, but he's the pusherman selling a bad brand on the streets. But what's worse is that his ministry knew this all along.

Will the minister do at least one thing? Will he remove himself as minister responsible for gaming policy and enforcement, will he remove himself as minister responsible for the British Columbia Lottery Corporation, or will he remove himself as minister responsible for consumer protection? Or will he do all of the above?

Hon. J. Les: I just want to point out that the volume of the question doesn't necessarily mean that it adds to the quality of the question.

Again, we are concerned about the findings of the Ombudsman. We take the recommendations seriously. They're going to be implemented, because we are concerned that we have a lottery system in British Columbia that consumers can depend on without question.

This morning at the news conference the Solicitor General said that B.C. Lotteries knew there were problems and that not enough attention was paid to fix the problems. But when asked what he was going to do to fix those problems, he golfed it over to the chair of the board of the B.C. Lottery Corporation. When he was asked what he was going to do, he said he had complete confidence in the CEO of the B.C. Lottery Corporation. He's already been exonerated.

My question to the Solicitor General is this. Does he not, according to the doctrine of ministerial responsibility, accept responsibility and do the honourable thing and resign?

Hon. J. Les: As the member opposite will know, there is a board of directors in place that manages the affairs of the B.C. Lottery Corporation, and they will make whatever appropriate decisions that they feel are appropriate at the time.

In terms of government's response, we are going to ensure that all of the recommendations are implemented and that they're going to be implemented as quickly as possible. We're also going to, as I've already indicated, have a review by an independent auditor to suggest further improvements that might be made.

S. Simpson: The Ombudsman has told us that the Lottery Corporation knew that there was a huge problem. So presumably either Mr. Poleschuk told the Solicitor General about this and nobody did anything to solve that problem — nobody did a thing — or he didn't tell the Solicitor General, in which case he is responsible and should be held accountable for that. If he did tell the Solicitor General, then the Solicitor General is responsible for doing nothing to protect British Columbians.

Since the Solicitor General refuses to take responsibility and do the honourable thing here, I'll ask my question of the Premier. Will the Premier hold somebody responsible and accountable and ensure that somebody pays the price for this inaction and impact on British Columbians?

Hon. J. Les: Well, there's another issue that sets this apart from some previous events that have gone on in and around this place some years ago. There was no evidence of any backdated memos.

Hon. J. Les: I've already said I'm taking full responsibility to ensure that all of the recommendations are going to be implemented as soon as possible.

S. Simpson: This government continues to refuse to accept responsibility and to be accountable. They've refused to accept responsibility and be accountable around dirty tricks. They've refused to accept responsibility and be accountable over 100-percent cost overruns on a convention centre, and now they're refusing to be accountable on this issue.

The public has reached its limit on this. Enough is enough. Will the Premier hold the minister accountable and responsible for his actions, or will he accept responsibility as the first minister?

Hon. J. Les: The Ombudsman's report is clear. There were deficiencies in terms of how the B.C. Lottery Corporation dealt with ticket validation. She has made 27 recommendations. We're going to accept and implement all of those recommendations.

We are going to have an outside auditor come in to do a complete review not only of the B.C. Lottery Corporation's procedures but also of its relationship with the gaming policy and enforcement branch.

British Columbians, I think, can be satisfied that we're doing everything in terms of making sure that we have a process of integrity around the B.C. Lottery Corporation.

R. Fleming: The Ombudsman has found serious deficiencies at B.C. Lottery Corporation around its performance — performance failures of the most serious kind.

Can the Solicitor General tell this House when he was first informed of those performance failures?

R. Fleming: The performance failures at B.C. Lottery Corporation are indeed serious. They will shake the confidence of B.C. consumers in this very institution.

Can the Solicitor General confirm this to the House? He hasn't on previous occasions when's he's been invited to. But can he tell this House if the CEO of B.C. Lottery Corporation received a performance bonus last year? Will he receive a performance bonus this year, and if so, how much?

Hon. J. Les: I suspect the member opposite would know that those are matters that are decided by the board of directors. I do not have direct input at all into whether or not the CEO receives a bonus. The member knows that, and his question is…

J. Kwan: Does the minister believe that the CEO of the Lottery Corporation should receive his performance bonus this year?

Hon. J. Les: As I said to the previous member, the matter of whether bonuses are paid to the CEO of the B.C. Lottery Corporation — or any other Crown corporation, for that matter — rests with the board of that organization. That is not a ministerial decision. The member opposite knows that.

J. Kwan: Based on the findings of the Ombudsman's report today, does the minister believe that the head of the B.C. Lottery Corporation should receive his performance bonus this year?

Hon. J. Les: I think that member, of all members in the House, should be painfully aware of what happens when there is political interference in these issues. She ought to know better. There is….

Hon. J. Les: I repeat again. There is a board of directors in place which clearly has responsibilities for managing the corporation, and they will make decisions based on all of the information they have at their disposal.

D. Chudnovsky: A few minutes ago the minister told the House that he had received an embargoed copy of the report yesterday. My question to the minister is this. Was the minister aware of any of the deficiencies laid out in the report before he received the report yesterday?

Hon. J. Les: Back in December, I believe it was, an investigation was concluded by the gaming policy and enforcement branch. It raised a number of issues where improvements needed to be made. Those improvements were made or in some cases are still being made.

It was the Ombudsman's report released today that pointed out further deficiencies. We are obviously not pleased that those deficiencies still exist, but we are going to make sure that those issues are corrected and dealt with appropriately.

D. Chudnovsky: I'm not sure that I or anyone on this side or in the galleries, for that matter, could parse the answer fully, so I'm going to ask the question again. I want to understand exactly what it is that the minister is answering to the question.

The question is: was he aware before yesterday, when he saw an embargoed copy of the report, of any of the deficiencies laid out in that report? Did he know about any of them before he got the report?

Hon. J. Les: Mr. Speaker, I have the report here. This is the report that I received yesterday, and that's when I was made aware of these recommendations.

B. Simpson: Just so that we are crystal-clear and the people of British Columbia are crystal-clear, the Solicitor General mentioned a previous report. He stated he got a previous report, and I believe he said that he got it in December. That's what I heard, and it will be in Hansard.

What report is the Solicitor General talking about with that previous report? And if it is a report prior to this one, what did he do about it at that time?

Hon. J. Les: Well, Mr. Speaker, it's clear that the member opposite doesn't pay attention too much of the time. It was pretty clear last October when difficulties with lotteries emerged in the province of Ontario. I immediately came to the conclusion that we had better investigate our own lottery operations here in the province of British Columbia.

That investigation ensued. It was conducted by the gaming policy and enforcement branch, and they reported out in December. They felt there were a number of deficiencies. They reported out to me with those, and I immediately said that those deficiencies must be corrected.

Many of those corrections have been implemented. Some of them are still ongoing. That is the report that I referred to earlier. Obviously, the Ombudsman has found additional issues that need to be addressed.

B. Simpson: First, I guess what we're saying is that in October the Solicitor General became aware, because of other jurisdictions, that we may have a problem. In December he was made aware that, in fact, we did have a problem and that there were deficiencies. Now we have the Ombudsman's report saying that there are further deficiencies.

My question to the Minister of Finance is back to the questions we were asking before. Will the CEO of

the Gaming Commission get the bonus that he's going to get when all of these deficiencies are occurring in B.C. lotteries, which the Solicitor General is aware of and isn't addressing until he gets report after report after report in front of his desk?

Hon. J. Les: Well, I've already answered that question several times, Mr. Speaker. Clearly, the issue of whether or not the CEO of the B.C. Lottery Corporation gets a bonus is a matter that is decided by its board of directors.

G. Robertson: Yesterday the Minister of Transportation said that the number of empty businesses along the Canada line hadn't changed by one since the construction began. Either the minister is truly clueless about what's really going on, or he's in total denial.

Maybe he and the Small Business Minister should come and pay a visit to Cambie Street. If they do, they will see a great number of empty storefronts in just two blocks where there were, a short time ago, very successful businesses — businesses like the Hugo Restaurant, Om Vegetarian Restaurant and Café Gloucester, which was one of the most successful Chinese restaurants in Vancouver for ten years.

How can this minister and the Small Business Minister blow off the small businesses along the Canada line and leave them in the dark on whether or not they will get compensation?

Hon. K. Falcon: Actually, I'm going from a representative of the Cambie Village Business Association, and that representative wrote to the paper. I quoted from him yesterday, and the member could have paid attention. He said that in recent months ten new businesses — those are new, members; not old, not closed — have opened their doors and expressed their intention to locate, including a new pharmacy, several new restaurants and a Capers Community Market. Historically there has been an 8 percent to 12 percent annual turnover of businesses.

This member may not know, but sometimes businesses close, and sometimes they open. We don't pretend that when you have a major process like what's going on right now, it's not going to have an impact.

The issue is: is TransLink, as the developer of that project, doing everything they can to try and ameliorate the impact? I believe they're doing everything they can.

G. Robertson: The Minister of Transportation again is repeating what he said yesterday — that somehow the thing to understand is that with small businesses, there's a natural turnover.

There is nothing natural about what's happening along the Canada line. Businesses will continue to close down because of the construction, unless this government does something. Businesses like the Don Don Noodle Café, which just announced that after more than 21 years as a successful café on Cambie Street, it's closing its doors in two weeks.

Before the minister completely rejects the idea of fair compensation to these small businesses along the Canada line, will he agree to join me and the local merchants for lunch at the Don Don Noodle Café before it closes its doors in two weeks?

Hon. K. Falcon: You know, it is amazing to me, Mr. Speaker — the lengths and the extent to which that member and that opposition will go to try and oppose a rapid transit project that's going to take 100,000 people a day out of their cars and into public transit. I am trying to understand the origins of this new-found expression of support and interest in small business from this member. I'm starting to wonder: could there be something else this member is thinking about?

I keep hearing these crazy rumours that he might want to run for mayor, and maybe he's just finding a way to bail out from that group — and I can understand that — and trying to establish himself. If he's so interested in having Vancouver provide tax relief, then maybe he ought to follow through on his plans and run for council and do it as the city of Vancouver.

C. Evans: My question is for the Minister of Health. Young parents in my constituency, Dwayne and Melanie Folk, phoned me to say they have had twins, and mother and babies are doing well.

Unfortunately, it wasn't a local call. It wasn't even a call from Creston. Dwayne phoned me from Edmonton to tell me the story of this amazing odyssey. At the end of March, Melanie learns in Creston at the hospital that she's going to have twins. That's great. But they say: "We can't deliver twins here anymore. You have to go to Women's Hospital in Vancouver."

So Dwayne and Melanie, at their own expense, pack up their three-year-old, get in the car, drive to Vancouver and lease an apartment for three months. Melanie checks into Women's Hospital, and it's okay until April 1. The babies are almost born, and they say, "You know what? We don't have room at the inn anymore," and fly them in 90 minutes to Edmonton.

Three months' lease on an apartment in Vancouver, and now they're in Edmonton. Dwayne and his daughter fly to follow them, and they're there now. The babies are born. The babies are now healthy. They're three weeks old. They've been ready to travel for two weeks, and they're still in Edmonton.

Now that my constituents are living in another province, when all they wanted to do was have a baby, my question to the Minister of Health is: will the Minister of Health agree to pay the out-of-province living costs of my constituents? And secondly, will the Minister of Health assist them to get back to British Columbia so they can raise these babies at home instead of being parked in Edmonton?

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for raising the question. I'm delighted to hear…

Hon. G. Abbott: …that the twins are doing well. I expect that the reason why the intensive care beds were required — level 2 or level 3 beds were required — for the twins is because there was some anticipation of potential problems with respect to them.

The member is a former Minister of Health. He knows well that there are occasions when babies and sometimes mothers require intensive care post-birth. I think the member would also know that there have never been, whether in the 1990s or any other time, level 2 or level 3 beds in the East Kootenay. It is necessary to go to Vancouver, Victoria, Calgary or….

Hon. G. Abbott: When babies require that level of care, we ensure that we get it. As the member knows, we have a reciprocal arrangement with the province of Alberta with respect to these matters. Sometimes when we have particularly heavy use of level 2 and level 3 beds in British Columbia, we make use of Alberta, and vice versa. Alberta babies come to British Columbia at times for that intensive care.

Hon. G. Abbott: If the member would provide me with the details in respect of the family, I would be glad to follow up in respect of the case.

D. Chudnovsky: I rise to reserve my right to bring forward a matter of privilege.

N. Simons: I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of 2,722 residents of the Powell River area who are opposed to the proposed expansion of the Catalyst landfill site within the city limits of Powell River.

J. Horgan: I have the signatures of over 12,000 residents of the Cowichan Valley and other communities on Vancouver Island urging the preservation of the historic Kinsol Trestle.

C. Trevena: I have the honour to present a petition from more than a thousand child care workers who want to ensure that funding is returned to child care resource and referral programs, that operating funds are restored and that child care funding agreements are upheld.

B. Simpson: I rise to present a petition. The petition is objecting to the conditions of the road in Likely, British Columbia, and asking the Minister of Transportation to undertake a review of the road conditions to restore safety to that road for the citizens of Likely.

G. Coons: I have a petition signed by numerous people from Saltspring Island who are concerned that access to our marine highway system is becoming unaffordable.

Hon. M. de Jong: Just before the orders of the day, I'm asked by staff to alert all members that, as we wind through the week, by Thursday to please clean out your desks. There's a variety of…. You get to come back, but they would like you to…. [Laughter.] We are asked to clean out our desks prior to leaving on Thursday.

For orders of the day today, for the rest of the day I call Committee of Supply — in this chamber, continued debate on the estimates of the Office of the Premier, and in Committee A, continued debate on the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation.

C. James: I'll get back to the staffing questions that we were asking before the break, but just one quick question of clarification. We were speaking before the lunch break with the Premier about the issue of KPMG

and the investigation by Paul Taylor. I asked the Premier a question around royal assent on Bill 35 and whether the Premier would withhold royal assent on Bill 35 until KPMG reports on its investigation.

A ruling was made that the bill was before the House, and when we've asked for clarification, clarification was that third reading is finished. Therefore, it's not in front of the House. Therefore, it's a legitimate question to ask. So I just ask the question: will the Premier delay royal assent on Bill 35 until KPMG reports back?

The Chair: Member, the necessity of legislation or the details of legislation are not before the Committee of Supply.

C. James: This is an issue around the KPMG investigation and the investigation that is underway from the Premier's office by the deputy to the Premier. This is a question regarding that investigation, with respect, Madam Chair, and a question about withholding royal assent until that investigation is done.

My ruling was that this legislation was not before the House. Therefore, it was a legitimate question to ask.

The Chair: Member, that bill is still a bill. It's still legislation, and it's before the House. It hasn't received royal assent, but it's still before the House. Therefore, it's not a part of Committee of Supply.

The Chair: Member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca, are you challenging the Chair?

C. James: I'll move on, but it's clear that we have two different rulings that have come forward on this issue. So we'll decide that outside of here.

I'll go back to the staffing questions for the Premier that I was asking previous to our break. The question I was asking the Premier was around the code of conduct that employees have to sign and undertake when they become employees of government and political appointees. My question to the Premier was: when an allegation is made that an employee in the Premier's office may have violated one of those standards that we talked about earlier…. Can the Premier describe the steps that are taken if one of his staff violates that code of conduct?

Hon. G. Campbell: I think that should issues arise, they are reviewed as necessary by the supervisor that's involved, and remedies are taken to rectify any situations that exist.

But I would like to take a moment just to say that I think all staff — so-called political appointments and non-political appointments — in the public service take seriously the standards of conduct for public service employees. This is what, in fact, they all sign on to:

Employees should contact their human resource consultant for advice and assistance in the interpretation of the application of this policy directive.

I think it should be clear to all members of the Legislature that we're fortunate to be served by public service employees — OIC appointments that are under section 12 and section 15. We take these matters seriously, supervisors take them seriously, and actions are taken to remedy any situations that may arise.

However, I do think it's important to note that at the end of the day, individuals take responsibility for their actions, and individuals are expected to do that both through the oath of office and through the standards of conduct.

C. James: As the Premier outlined, staff are expected to follow this code of conduct. We've had some examples where that has not occurred. Just to use it as an illustrative example so the Premier then can perhaps give us more detail about what occurred…. Is it fair to say that the process that the Premier is talking about, where people may not follow the code of conduct, led to the firing of Prem Vinning, special adviser to the Premier who disguised his voice and phoned in on a radio show and pretended to be somebody else?

Can the Premier describe what happened in that case to use it as an illustration of what might happen if individuals did not in fact follow the code of conduct?

Hon. G. Campbell: Mr. Vinning was never a public servant. I understand this is a discussion about the public service. He was not a public servant, and he was never employed by the public service.

C. James: This is also a discussion about the staff in the Premier's office, including political appointments in the Premier's office. Perhaps, then, I can ask a question about the disciplinary measures that were taken with Basi and Virk immediately after the raids on the Legislature.

Mr. Basi was fired; that's in the public record. Mr. Virk was suspended; that's in the public record. Some investigation and some measures were taken. My question to the Premier would then be: how did that occur? What were the steps that were taken when an RCMP investigation, in fact, was going on?

Hon. G. Campbell: I don't know how to be clearer with regard to this. I will not be discussing a matter that is currently before the courts, regardless of how the question is put. I don't believe it's appropriate to do that, and I will not be doing that.

C. James: Mr. Basi's firing did not occur when it was before the courts, nor did Mr. Virk's suspension occur when that was before the courts. Those were actions taken in the Premier's office. Staff spoke to the issue from the Premier's office.

My question for clarification from the Premier is: what kinds of actions were taken in the Premier's office to make a decision on those disciplinary measures?

The Chair: Member, the sub judice rule is designed to prevent prejudice in court, and the Chair is enforcing the sub judice rule.

M. Farnworth: On a point of order, Chair. The question was very clear. It didn't relate to a court case. It related to events preceding the termination of two individuals from the service of the provincial government. This is not before the courts. It is not subject to the sub judice rule.

The Chair: Member, that's up to the Chair to determine. The Chair is enforcing the sub judice rule.

C. James: My question, then, is to the Premier. Does the Premier believe it's in keeping with the government's standard of conduct to counsel an employee to impersonate individuals and phone in and pretend to be someone else on open-line shows?

Hon. G. Campbell: I do think it's important to go back, and unfortunately, we have to remind the Leader of the Opposition of this. Even her own Attorney General critic has pointed out: "It's essential to the rule of law that the integrity of the judicial process not be interfered with. High-profile prosecutions have failed in the past because politicians felt compelled to make comments in public that were later deemed prejudicial."

The Leader of the Opposition can dress these questions up however she desires to. That's her right, obviously, but it is equally my right not to answer. I do not believe that's in the best interests of the court system. I do not believe it's in the best interests of an independent judiciary. And I do not believe it's in the best interests of a fair and a just resolution, which I know all members of the Legislature would seek.

So I do not intend to answer questions that are thinly veiled references to a court case which is currently ongoing.

C. James: Just to speak to this issue again, because I think it's important to note and important to have on record that these are questions that are not directly before the court. These are questions that in fact relate to two employees who were in the employ of this government.

The Premier is ultimately responsible for people in the employ of this government, and therefore I would expect that the Premier would be able to speak to disciplinary measures taken with employees in government, separate and apart from the court case.

These were two individuals who were disciplined by government. My question would be: what general process — if the Premier wants to talk about it in a general sense and not on the individuals — has the Premier taken to deal with disciplinary measures of individuals from his office or from government…?

Hon. B. Penner: Point of order. It appears to me that the Leader of the Opposition is in fact arguing with the Chair. The Chair has made a ruling here. The sub judice rule applies. The member continues to refer to individuals who are currently before the Supreme Court of British Columbia, and the Chair has expressed her opinion about whether or not it's appropriate. It's not appropriate for the Leader of the Opposition to argue with the Chair.

The Chair: Members, the Chair has already ruled. The information the Chair is hearing came out of the court proceeding. The Chair is going to enforce the sub judice rule.

C. James: My question to the Premier is: how does he discipline employees in his office who do not follow a code of conduct?

Hon. G. Campbell: In the public service of British Columbia, public servants take an oath of office, and they also sign a standard of conduct.

The section 12 public servants are under the supervision of the Deputy Minister to the Premier in my office. The section 15 OIC appointments are under the supervision of my chief of staff.

If there is a suggestion that there has been some inappropriate behaviour, that is reviewed by the appropriate supervisor. The discipline can range throughout the public service from a verbal reprimand to the termination of employment. Managers and supervisors are expected to actually examine those situations, and they take the appropriate action and make the appropriate determinations after considering the facts.

C. James: Just to clarify: is the Premier saying that his office will always take appropriate action to investigate and discipline whenever an allegation is made about the wrongful conduct of his staff?

Hon. G. Campbell: It is not our practice to discipline on the basis of allegations. I think I've been pretty clear about that.

If there is a suggestion that there has been some inappropriate behaviour, then that suggestion is examined. It's reviewed. The facts are determined, and supervisors take appropriate steps to remedy the situation. As I mentioned, throughout the public service those steps can range all the way from a verbal reprimand to the termination of employment.

C. James: There appears to be a contradiction here from the Premier, since some staff have been disciplined based on what we presume are allegations or concerns, as the Premier identifies it. In this case he says that staff aren't dealt with due to allegations.

My question to the Premier would be: which is it? Some staff are treated one way; some staff are treated the other. Which is it?

Hon. G. Campbell: Again, there's no question…. The same set of standards of conduct is applied across the public service. Supervisors take their actions and make their decisions on the basis of the facts.

C. James: Hon. Chair, then I'll ask my question again with respect to your ruling and understanding that we need to steer clear of anything to do with the court case, as the Premier won't answer those questions. My question would be: what facts were used in the case of disciplining Basi-Virk that aren't being used to look at the allegations…?

The Chair: Member, that's clearly sub judice, and the Chair has ruled on that. You cannot do indirectly what you can't do directly. The Chair has already ruled on the sub judice rule.

C. James: In past cases where employees have been fired from the Premier's office, could the Premier, then, let me know what facts those were based on?

Hon. G. Campbell: First, I think it would be inappropriate to comment on personnel matters in my estimates or anywhere else, but I do think it's important to note that to my knowledge and my recollection, there has not been a staff person that has been fired from the Premier's office since I've been the Premier.

C. James: It's pretty clear that once again we're not going to get answers from the Premier on these issues. I'd like to speak a little bit about the lobby registry and some of the work that needs to be done in that area.

With everything that we know about the lobby registry, all the events that have occurred over the last while and the concerns about Ken Dobell's perceived conflict of interest, would the Premier agree that it's time to look at the lobby registry act and tighten the rules governing lobbyists and potential conflicts?

The Chair: Members, I am reminding members again that we do not discuss legislation or the necessity for legislation in Committee of Supply. That is….

The Chair: Member, legislation is not proper subject for Committee of Supply. If members look at their rule books, they would know that by now.

M. Farnworth: That section deals with specific legislation, not the need for policy issues, which is what estimates debate is about. It has been the practice of this chamber, both in the little chamber and in this chamber, during ministerial estimates — and that includes the Premier — to engage in policy discussions that may require legislation.

There is precedent after precedent after precedent on those particular issues in this House. I would suggest the Chair go back and review the Hansard debates to see examples of this on numerous occasions. The questions are not out of order.

The Chair: I remind the member to go back and read page 138 of Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, third edition. I will read for the member to refresh his memory: "Only the administrative action of a department is open to debate. The necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply, nor the conduct of certain high public servants, nor the decision of a judicial court." May 17 edition, page 766, reference.

C. James: Then perhaps I can speak about specifics, events where MLAs, where government and opposition caucus are invited to attend when the House is sitting, for example — events where MLAs and ministers might go and have a snack, a glass of wine and meet with organizations to learn about their interests and concerns. Sometimes staff attend those events as well.

My question would be to the Premier. Has the Premier's staff ever attended those events that are hosted by lobbyists and their clients?

Hon. G. Campbell: I can't speak for specifics, but I can tell you that I believe, at least in an open society, that we encourage members of the Legislature and members of the public service to interact with citizens and hear what concerns they may have, what suggestions they may have for improving the province. At all times members of the public service and members of the Legislature are guided by their oath of office and the standards of conduct which we've been discussing.

C. James: Then continuing on, have staff from the Premier's office, the Premier's staff, ever attended

sporting events, dinners, received tickets? Does the Premier have a policy for his staff on receiving any of those tickets, attending any of those events and receiving those benefits?

Hon. G. Campbell: I'd refer the member to the Public Service Agency website which covers off the standards of conduct for public service employees. It was revised in 2003. It points out that public servants, in fact, meet with stakeholders every day. It's one of the things that we ask them to do as we pursue our government initiatives, and I'm sure that it's something the opposition asks them to do as they pursue opposition initiatives.

It's important to note that it is all right for hospitality between persons doing business together to take place. Tokens can be exchanged as part of protocol. Normal presentation of gifts to persons participating in public functions or normal exchange of gifts between friends is all right under the standard of conduct. Those are the standards that we've set in British Columbia. Those are the standards that we pursue.

C. James: The Premier's staff follow the same code of conduct, and there aren't separate guidelines for the Premier's staff, if I've heard correctly.

If I could move on to the federal lobbyist act and speak a little bit about the federal system. In the federal lobbyist act Pilothouse lobbyists who had admitted to bribery would have been in violation of a code of ethics, according to the federal lobbyist registry, and they would have been prevented from in fact doing further lobbying.

Here in B.C., though, they were able to keep up with their activities even if they admitted to wrongdoing. My question to the Premier is: does he believe that a code of ethics should be in place that would at least match the federal registry act?

Hon. G. Campbell: I've said a number of times that there is the same set of standards of conduct for everyone across the public service, from the Premier's office through the ministries, etc. I think it's important to note that.

In terms of the question that the member asks, as she may know, the lobbyist legislation that was brought in 2001 was the first time that lobbyist legislation had been in place. The Attorney General has been working for some time with regard to that and will continue to.

The opposition has been asked for their recommendations on what they would add to that. Should they want to pursue that, they should do that through the Attorney General.

C. James: My question was around the federal code of ethics, but apparently the Premier is permitted to speak to the current legislation and current lobbying registry act, as he just did. Therefore, I'm presuming, Madam Chair, that the ruling is that it is permitted for both of us to engage in that dialogue?

The Chair: The ruling is that neither side is, but if one side opens — I believe the Leader of the Opposition asked the question — the other side did not necessarily have to answer it.

M. Farnworth: On a point of order, hon. Chair, I would like to ask for a clarification. The Chair has ruled that the discussion of provincial legislation was not permissible, so the Premier, in response to a question in which provincial legislation was not even mentioned, is allowed to discuss that. Then the Chair indicates that it's not okay, or that if it's been opened up by one side, it's okay, then, for both parties to discuss the particular issue.

Could the Chair please make up its mind and recognize, then, that the Leader of the Opposition's questions are entirely in order.

The Chair: I'm going to read the ruling for both sides. If both sides would give the Chair a moment to permit me to read those to both sides, they would recognize what the ruling is.

Only the administrative action of a department is open to debate. The necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply, and the Chair will be enforcing that.

A. Dix: As the Chair will know, the reference that's based on is based on an old edition of Erskine May. There's a new edition of Erskine May on this issue — on the voting of estimates, on the relevance of debate in estimates — which reads, and I'm speaking to the point of order, that the normal rules of debate apply to the consideration of estimates. "In recommending the estimates for debate, the liaison committee normally recommends that an estimate be considered so far as it relates to a particular subject, often the subject of a select committee inquiry. That report from the liaison committee, when it is agreed to by the House, determines the scope of debate on the motion."

Hon. Chair, in fact the new version of Erskine May addresses this issue differently. I just make this point, that the effort to avoid answering questions with respect to issues around lobbyists and around lobbying legislation is not, I think, a justification for denying that these questions be asked of the Premier in the Legislature of British Columbia. In fact, the new edition of Erskine May has come out more recently than MacMinn, which has guided some of our procedures in this House and clearly should be a referral in MacMinn in terms of the essence.

So I ask that the questions that are being asked by the Leader of the Opposition — relevant questions, questions that the Premier has a responsibility to this House to answer — be allowed to be asked.

Hon. B. Penner: Hon. Chair, the member should be aware that in this House, MacMinn, third edition, is the preferred resource that we go to for direction.

The Chair has made a ruling. On this side of the House we respect the rulings of the Chair. I would suggest that the member conduct himself appropriately through you, Madam Chair, because it is inappropriate to challenge a ruling of the Chair.

The Chair: Members, the Chair would like the members to know that I am quoting from Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, third edition, which is the current edition of MacMinn's rules.

The Chair also wishes the members to be advised that the Chair is not stopping discussion on the issue of lobbyists. The Chair is not going to recognize the particulars of questions on legislation. I would like both sides to be aware of that.

C. James: Then my question, again, to the Premier is: does the Premier believe that a code of ethics, as they have with the federal legislation — Lobbyists Registration Act — should be in place here in our province?

D. Chudnovsky: In the gallery above us are a number of students from McBride Elementary School in Vancouver-Kensington. I had a chance to visit with them outside on the steps a few minutes ago. They are charming, intelligent and beautiful, and of course, they live in the best constituency in the province. I'd like to ask members to welcome our friends from McBride Elementary School.

Hon. G. Campbell: The member is asking me about issues around federal frameworks that I'm not aware of. It's difficult for me to respond to those. I'm not sure how it has to do with the administrative action of the department in these estimates. I'm not aware of the federal policy framework that is in place, and it would be difficult for me to respond.

C. James: I would hope that the Premier would take some time to review the federal act and the federal code. It's certainly critical for some of his staff in his office to pay attention to, so I would hope that the Premier will take some time to do that.

I'd like to move on and talk a little bit about accountability and conflict of interest. My first question to the Premier would be: does the Premier believe in cabinet accountability, and how would he define that?

Hon. G. Campbell: Yes, I think that all members of cabinet, as all members of the Legislature, are accountable. Of course, we have the ultimate accountability to the public in terms of our actions, our commitments to the public, what we do and how we carry those out in terms of the standards that we set as we pursue our public goals on behalf of the public. I believe those same standards are there for the opposition to pursue.

I also believe that it's important for us to recognize that for all the issues that we're dealing with, we will all be ultimately accountable in May 2009. Certainly, the opposition understands the importance of public accountability, and they experienced that in a pretty significant way.

When we see cabinets that play games with budgets…. We've been recognized for the openness and accountability that we have in terms of our budgeting process in this government. We've been recognized across the country for the initiatives that we've undertaken to make sure that we do carry out an open and transparent government, and we will be held accountable to that. Just as we're held accountable, so will the opposition be held accountable for their actions.

C. James: I find it unbelievable that the Premier could even choke out the words "openness and accountability" when we look at the example of these estimates alone — never mind the last number of months of this government stonewalling, refusing to answer questions, hiding behind court cases, hiding behind anything they can look at, anything they can choose to avoid answering questions. Estimates has just been one more example of that.

My question is a direct question to the Premier. He shouldn't have to take time to talk to others. This is just for him to make a decision on, so it should be a fairly fast response. My question to the Premier is: does he believe that the Premier holds the ultimate accountability around ensuring there's accountability in cabinet? Is he ultimately responsible for that accountability in cabinet?

Hon. G. Campbell: Yes, I am the president of the executive council. I do select members of cabinet. Like every other MLA, I am ultimately accountable for my actions to the members of the public.

C. James: Perhaps I can give an example to the Premier to talk a little bit about on accountability that the Premier says is important and that he is the ultimate authority. On December 14 the Solicitor General told the Times Colonist in a letter that all Lottery Corporation systems were subjected to rigorous testing, and no issues had surfaced.

However, today the Solicitor General said he knew of deficiencies as a result of the December report. It appears that the Solicitor General has misled the public. My question would be to the Premier. Does this meet his test of accountability?

Hon. G. Campbell: First let me say that I have not had the opportunity to review all of the information

that has been made public today by the Ombudsman. Let me also say that in the fall of 2006 some issues arose that have actually been dealt with across the country with regard to the sale of lottery tickets and winnings.

The Solicitor General did a review and made recommendations on the basis of that review, as was pointed out during question period. The Ombudsman subsequently decided that there was more work that she felt could be done. She prepared a comprehensive report and made 27 recommendations. Those recommendations have been embraced by the Solicitor General as well as the board of the Lottery Corporation. In the words of the Ombudsman, there's a problem, and we should fix it. That's exactly what we're doing.

C. James: I recognize the Premier is going to take some time to read the full report, but the report in summary is very clear that there are huge deficiencies in the system.

My question would be to the Premier. Does he believe someone should be accountable for this mess in the Lottery Corporation?

Hon. G. Campbell: I really think it's appropriate to read the report, which I have not had the opportunity to do today. I'm amazed at the opposition leader's speedreading techniques that she has. I think it's important that we get the information.

There are 27 recommendations which will be pursued. The Solicitor General will be working with the board of the B.C. Lottery Corporation, who've agreed that they will be implementing those 27 recommendations. The B.C. Lottery Corporation, I'm sure, will have an action plan that they will put in place.

This government believes it's important to maintain the independence of the board of B.C. Lottery Corporation within the context of the policy the government has set, so we will pursue those 27 recommendations, as the Ombudsman suggested.

I think it's a comprehensive report. It highlights some significant challenges that must be met. It points out, as I understand it, 27 actions that will be taken, and as the Solicitor General has said, those actions and each of those recommendations will be followed and implemented in the appropriate way.

The Chair: Member, before we proceed further, if I may just encourage the member that I totally understand the exploratory arena of your questioning, but it would be much more meaningful if you went back to the estimates debate, I would think.

C. James: Thank you, hon. Chair. This is directly related to the Premier's accountability, to the Premier's accountability for all cabinet ministers and to the Premier's accountability for government and the decisions that the government takes.

I can go back and quote, if the Premier needs it, some quotes from him directly that talk about the fact that the Premier's office is ultimately responsible for everything that goes on. Therefore, these questions are directly related to estimates, to the Premier's office and to the Premier's conduct himself.

My question is to the Premier. He says he hasn't read the report. It's clear that his Solicitor General has read the report. The Premier stated that. The Premier stated that the recommendations would be implemented, so obviously there's some review that has gone on of this report. Obviously, the government believes that these recommendations are important enough to act on. They obviously recognize there was some challenge.

My question again to the Premier would be: does he not believe that someone has to be ultimately responsible for the challenges that are identified and the recommendations that then follow?

Hon. G. Campbell: As I mentioned earlier, I haven't had the opportunity to read the report. I know that the Solicitor General has said that he did have the opportunity to get it yesterday.

There were 27 recommendations made by the Ombudsman. The Solicitor General has said that all of those 27 recommendations will be carried out. In fact, he has told this House today that he intends to have an independent audit of both the Lottery Corporation and the gaming enforcement branch which will go even deeper, I would expect, than the Ombudsman was able to do. The appropriate actions will be taken as a result of that report.

I do think it's important to get the facts straight and to understand those facts. To be clear about that, the board of the B.C. Lottery Corporation is responsible for carrying out the policies that the government has set. They will report back to the Solicitor General, and appropriate actions will be taken.

C. James: That's exactly what I'm trying to do, in fact — get the facts straight. It's becoming more and more difficult because of the statements that have been made by the Solicitor General. Again, with the Premier saying that he was ultimately accountable for the actions of government and the actions of cabinet ministers, I'd like to ask the Premier about the contradiction between his minister's statements.

Today in the House, as the Premier said, we heard from the Solicitor General. He stated: "That investigation ensued. It was conducted by the gaming policy and enforcement branch, and they reported out in December. They felt there were a number of deficiencies. They reported out to me with those, and I…said that those deficiencies must be corrected." That was the Solicitor General today in the House stating that he heard about those concerns in December and that he stated that those had to be fixed.

I quote from the minister — the Solicitor General, the same one — in December in the Times Colonist: "'I asked…to confirm the integrity of the technology systems used for…the lottery retail network' and was told everything was fine."

To the Premier, there appears to be a contradiction. There certainly is confusion on the public's behalf. We have the Solicitor General stating that everything was fine in December. He stated today in this House that in fact he knew things were not fine in December. Because the Premier has the ultimate accountability around all of these cabinet ministers, will the Premier hold the Solicitor General accountable for appearing to mislead the public?

Hon. B. Penner: This point has already been raised. The Premier has already given an answer saying that he wants to take time to read the report. I suggest that this questioning is repetitious.

M. Farnworth: Yes, thank you, hon. Chair. The member has been around this House long enough to know that repetitious is a lot more than one or two times asking a question. If he doesn't recognize that, he really should go back and read the rule book.

The Chair: Thank you for your observations, Member. The Chair is fully aware of his duties and will consider the proceedings.

Hon. G. Campbell: No, I honestly can't speak for what the minister may or may not have said and what was reported in the Times Colonist.

I can say this. As the Solicitor General pointed out today in this House, in the fall of 2006 there were concerns raised about the lottery situation in Ontario. As a result of those and other situations that evidently exist across the country, the Solicitor General asked the gaming enforcement branch to do a review.

That review came through in December and highlighted some specific concerns. The Solicitor General asked for actions to be taken with regard to those specific concerns. My understanding — again, from hearing from the Solicitor General today in the House — is that some of those actions are complete and some of those actions are in process at this point.

Subsequent to that the Ombudsman felt that she should have a look at the situation. She did, throughout that. She has now submitted a report. It was submitted at ten o'clock this morning. I have not had an opportunity to read that report, but I have heard from the Solicitor General, as has the opposition, that all 27 recommendations made by the Ombudsman will be put in place.

Evidently, B.C. Lottery today said specifically that they will be putting in place the 27 recommendations from the Ombudsman. They also said that this will be the first province in Canada to ban retailers from purchasing or checking products at their own establishments.

Further, the Solicitor General said that there would be an independent review, an audit that would be taking place, of the B.C. Lotteries Corporation and the gaming enforcement branch. Obviously, if they're necessary, actions will be taking place as a result of that review. Those are the steps that the Solicitor General has taken, and I agree with those steps.

C. James: Then to speak directly to the Premier's accountability, since it appears that he won't hold the Lottery Corporation accountable and he won't hold the minister accountable, does the Premier feel accountable for what's gone on in the Lottery Corporation?

Hon. G. Campbell: As I've said before, I think we are all accountable for our activities in government. I'm certainly accountable as the Premier, as the Leader of the Opposition is accountable as the Leader of the Opposition.

I think what's important is that if a problem is identified, steps are taken to rectify it. A problem was identified in October with regard to the lottery activities that were taking place in Ontario. Steps were taken by the Solicitor General to have the gaming enforcement branch review our current systems. He did do that.

They found that there were some steps that had to be taken to improve that. There were recommendations that were made. Those recommendations are now in the midst of either being completed or moving towards conclusion.

Subsequent to that review, the Ombudsman felt it was important that she carry out a report. She has now submitted that report as of this morning. I have not yet had an opportunity to read that report. I haven't had an opportunity to hear back from the board of the B.C. Lottery Corporation.

I think it's appropriate for us to have said and for the Solicitor General to have been very clear that the 27 recommendations made by the Ombudsman will be followed through. I also think it's appropriate that the Solicitor General has said that there will be an independent audit done of both the gaming enforcement branch and the B.C. Lottery Corporation.

I also think it's important that the board of B.C. Lottery be directed, as the minister has, to come back with an action plan to put those activities in place. Subsequent to the audit which will be implemented, if there are further recommendations, we will pursue those recommendations as well.

C. James: We've certainly heard words, reports, actions, talk from this Premier. No one, in the end, is being held accountable, and it's very disappointing. This was an opportunity for the Premier to be accountable to British Columbians, to hold someone accountable to British Columbians for this mess. It appears that he is not the least bit interested in doing that, so I think that's very disappointing.

Moving on to another accountability area, the issue of conflict of interest. If we take a look at the last few years, we have senior government officials who have left office and who have taken positions with the private sector that have created very serious perceptions of conflict of interest.

Ken Dobell is one example of that. Ken Dobell, as we know, created a guideline before he left office that said senior officials should wait one full year before they take contracts that could put them in a potential conflict. That was Mr. Dobell's own rule that he created, and as we know, Mr. Dobell only waited ten months.

I would like to ask the Premier: why did Mr. Dobell not follow his own guidelines, and why did the Premier's office not choose to enforce them?

Hon. G. Campbell: Senior management in B.C.'s public service do have some requirements with regard to what and how they can work subsequent to leaving the public service. After leaving the public service, obviously dealings with outside entities have to have some caveats or some containment on them. It lasts for a year following the leaving of the public service.

In fact, Mr. Dobell's contract, which was referred to by the Leader of the Opposition, enhanced the employment restrictions that Mr. Dobell could face. Any contract had to be approved by the Deputy Minister to the Premier prior to that contract being able to be entered into.

In the spring of 2006, prior to the one-year anniversary with regard to Mr. Dobell, he did check with my deputy minister as to whether or not he could take on the tasks the city had asked him to take on with regard to the cultural precincts. Since it was an initiative where the province was working directly with the city and looking at opportunities there for us to work together, it was agreed that he could take on that contract.

C. James: Can the Premier tell this House how many other senior officials had the one-year rule waived?

Hon. G. Campbell: There are two documented cases of former deputy ministers that had the time period waived. One was Vince Collins, a former deputy minister for the PSA, and the other was Don Wright, a former Deputy Minister of Forests. In both cases, due to lack of their past work and future prospects, the Deputy Minister to the Premier of the day concluded that there was no harm to government if they took on private employment under strict conditions.

For Mr. Collins it was agreed that he would not be allowed to contract back to the PSA or B.C. Leadership for at least six months after departing from his tasks.

For Mr. Wright, as he was going to continue to work on the government's behalf as a contractor after leaving the deputy minister's position, he was restricted from taking any private sector contracts that would be negotiating with the Ministry of Forests, and he would have to seek approval before having any contracts with any forestry-related companies.

C. James: Just so I can determine when a year is not a year, because it appears a year isn't a year…. Even though it is written down as a year requirement, it appears there are people who don't have to follow that year.

Just a couple of other names for the Premier beyond the names that he has raised. Mike Marasco, a former vice-president of Partnerships B.C., only waited six months. He resigned from Partnerships B.C. and took a position with the Plenary Group that actually bids on Partnerships B.C. contracts. So my question to the Premier is: why was that one-year rule waived?

Hon. G. Campbell: I think it is important to note that we have in place post-employment restrictions for senior management in the B.C. public service. Those post-employment restrictions for senior management in the B.C. public service specifically have a component that provides for the reduction of one-year limitations. It's for senior management in the B.C. public service and not, as the Leader of the Opposition is trying to suggest, for some.

Let me read to the Chair the reduction of the one-year limitation component of post-employment restrictions for senior management in the B.C. public service:

Mr. Marasco, who was referred to by the Leader of the Opposition, was not in a senior management position in the B.C. public service. He did work for Partnerships B.C., so Partnerships B.C. put in place a number of protections, including signing a conflict-of-interest adjudicator, who demanded not only a six-month reprieve from working with Partnerships B.C. but also disallowed Mr. Marasco from working on health care–related projects, which was his area of involvement when he worked for Partnerships B.C. He was also barred from working in the Vancouver office for that six months.

C. James: I think the Premier has pointed out the contradiction himself — six months, not a year. Does the Premier not believe that the standard should be consistent across the board, whether we're talking about Partnerships B.C. or whether we're in fact talking about Richard Turner, with the Lottery Corporation, who is another example of someone who left and started a job again seven months later?

My question to the Premier then would be: does he not believe that it would make sense to have consistent rules applied — the one-year rule applied not with a list of long exceptions, as the Premier outlined, but a one-year rule in place across government and the corporations?

Hon. G. Campbell: I think it is important to note that the reason the post-employment restrictions for

senior management in the public service were put in place was to protect the public interest.

Obviously, there is not an intent to be unfairly restrictive. We want people to work in the public service in British Columbia, to bring their talents to it. There may be people that decide they want to go back out and work in the private sector, and we should not discourage that. We should try and ensure that the public interest is protected, and that's what I believe takes place here.

The fact of the matter is that under the previous government there were no standards. Now there are standards that are in place. Crown corporations are expected to be fully accountable for the management of their Crown corporations and for their management decisions. If issues arise, the boards will address them, and the minister and the government will ensure that the public interest is remembered and is kept in mind.

I think we saw that with regard to how Partnerships B.C. dealt with Mr. Marasco. I also think that in terms of the other gentleman that was just mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition, he was not an employee. If you're not an employee, it's hard to provide the same kinds of rules.

However, I should say this. He was a chair prior to the ethical standards being developed by the Board Resourcing and Development Office and before they were put in place. In the spirit of those standards, however, he did receive legal advice stating that there would be no conflict in his holding another directorship. It's a directorship, I understand, that is outside of the province and in fact doesn't do very much work in Canada, let alone in British Columbia.

We want to encourage people to be involved in public life in British Columbia, in the public service through boards, through commissions. I think that we should recognize, when they do that, that obviously there is public interest involved. There are requirements that must be met now. There are ethical standards that must be met. We have an obligation to protect the public interest, and that's what the standards that were brought in subsequent to this government being elected do. They protect the public interest.

C. James: Perhaps the Premier also needs to take into account the conflict of interest, which is the important piece in all of this that seems to be missing. He might want to take some time to talk to his own Minister of Finance, who in fact set her own standard for her ministerial assistant, who left his post on April 30. She actually sent him a letter stating that neither she nor her office would have any contact with him for one year.

Apparently, she set a standard, so I think the Premier might want to take a moment to take a look at what his ministers are doing and perhaps find a consistent standard across government that actually would be applied and not waived.

I would like to go back now to the staff in the Premier's office and speak about special adviser Ken Dobell — talk a little bit about his contract and a little bit about the direction taken in the office.

Just a point of clarification first. In the letter following Mr. Dobell signing his contract as a special adviser, the Premier made the nature of that relationship very clear, saying Mr. Dobell "will report to me but consult regularly with the deputy to the Premier."

As we know, Mr. Dobell also reports to Ms. McDonald. Ms. McDonald is responsible — and I want it make sure I've got this correct — for monitoring performance, receiving reports. She is a signatory to the contract. She monitors contract compliance for Mr. Dobell. Is that all correct?

Hon. G. Campbell: On August 8, 2005, I sent a letter to Mr. Dobell. I believe the Leader of the Opposition has that letter. We've canvassed this in both the 2005 and the 2006 estimates. I would refer her to page 2 of that, which points out that Mr. Dobell will report to me but will consult regularly with the Deputy Minister to the Premier and cabinet secretary "to ensure effective coordination with related government initiatives. Any work you may take on for any other party must be free of conflict and approved by the deputy to the Premier and the cabinet secretary."

I think it's important to note that the contractual obligations, obviously, will be monitored by the deputy minister, and the Deputy Minister to the Premier signed the contract with Mr. Dobell.

C. James: One section of that contract that the Premier is referring to, section 15, states very clearly that Mr. Dobell must comply with all applicable laws.

My question to the Premier is: at the time the contract was signed, did Ms. McDonald seek any legal advice with regard to the duties that have been outlined for Mr. Dobell and what applicable laws would apply?

Hon. G. Campbell: During the preparation of the contract, it was reviewed in its entirety by the legal services branch.

C. James: Was there any advice received, legal or otherwise, by Ms. McDonald that told her that Mr. Dobell was required to register with the federal registry act?

Hon. G. Campbell: The onus of compliance with the law obviously rests with the contractor. In this particular case, I can't speak to whether it was required for him to sign on to the federal lobbyist registration or not. But that onus was clearly with him.

C. James: Just so I can sum up and be clear, Ms. McDonald signed the contract. Under the contract, Mr. Dobell reports to Ms. McDonald. She's responsible for ensuring that he fulfils any of his contractual obligations. But she sought no advice in taking a look at what those contractual obligations were with respect to complying with federal laws. Is that correct?

Hon. G. Campbell: Again, let me remind the Leader of the Opposition that in the preparation of the contract, subject to the review of the legal services branch…. In the contract, which is available for the Leader of the Opposition — I believe she's had it for a number of months now — it is clear that it is a requirement of Mr. Dobell that he must comply with all applicable laws.

That's clearly in the contract and is clearly stated. There are no questions about where the onus of that responsibility lies. It lies with Mr. Dobell.

C. James: Just to continue, when was Ms. McDonald aware that Mr. Dobell had not complied with the federal Lobbyists Registration Act?

Hon. G. Campbell: My deputy minister is not aware that there is a legal requirement for Mr. Dobell to register with the federal lobbyists registry. However, if there is a requirement and if it's found that there is a requirement, that would be Mr. Dobell's responsibility to fulfil that requirement.

C. James: I find it incredible that in all the discussion around the registration time for Mr. Dobell in the provincial registry act, the deputy would be unaware of the federal registry act. I find that unbelievable. I don't think anyone would believe a statement like that when you take a look at all the public discussion that's occurred around both the provincial lobby registry act and the federal lobby registry act.

In fact, there's a requirement in the federal registry act to do with conflict of interest. Ms. McDonald did sign a letter around conflict of interest for Mr. Dobell, so my question would be: did Ms. McDonald not understand that that letter was part of the requirement for the federal lobby registry act?

Hon. G. Campbell: First, I want to say again that I have great confidence in the staff that we have, our public sector staff, and the leadership that we have in British Columbia. What I said, and what the Leader of the Opposition has decided to rephrase, is that the Deputy Minister to the Premier is not aware that there is a determined legal requirement for Mr. Dobell to have registered under the federal conflict requirements.

In fact, I believe there's a member of her caucus who has lodged a complaint with the federal registrar. There has been no determination that we are aware of at this point, and if the Leader of the Opposition believes that because people are discussing it that there is a determination, that's actually not the case. There has been no determination.

There was a report by Mr. Loukidelis on Monday that pointed out quite clearly that Mr. Dobell had been very open, he had been transparent, and he'd registered late for the B.C. lobbyists registry. That will be dealt with, as we've said, as is deemed appropriate by the appropriate authorities. But the fact of the matter is that there has been no determination made with regard to a legal requirement for Mr. Dobell.

If there was a determination that was made that there was some requirement that Mr. Dobell should have fulfilled, that would have clearly been his responsibility, and the onus of fulfilling that responsibility rests with Mr. Dobell under the contract.

C. James: I just have to say again that I certainly would expect that the deputy to the Premier would be aware of lobbyist registration acts, whether they are provincial or federal, and the importance of following through on those with any lobbyists, special advisers, contract consultants — whatever you want to call them — who were in the Premier's office.

I certainly would expect that that would be part of the duties of the deputy to the Premier — not to put the Premier's office in jeopardy of having someone violate an act and therefore the Premier's office having been involved in that. As I said, I still continue to find that unbelievable.

I want to talk a little bit about the multiple hats worn by Mr. Dobell — continuing on with the special adviser in the Premier's office. We've talked about conflict of interest, and I'll come back to conflict of interest in a little bit.

I also want to talk about workload and ask the Premier: has the Premier ever had any qualms about all the duties Mr. Dobell was performing and the multiple roles that he was performing on a part-time basis?

Hon. G. Campbell: You know, the Leader of the Opposition asked if I had any concerns about the workload that Mr. Dobell had taken on. Mr. Dobell is a longstanding public servant. And frankly, I've found that the line of questioning the Leader of the Opposition has taken with regard to not just Mr. Dobell but other public servants during these estimates is simply unacceptable to people in the public service, I'm sure. It is to me.

I'll obviously listen to the questions and take them, but I have never had any concerns about Mr. Dobell's capacity. Mr. Dobell has been honoured across this country for his work in the public service. Only this new opposition feels that it's appropriate to attack people in the public service.

If there are issues for us to deal with, then we should deal with them. We have dealt with Mr. Dobell's contract on two separate occasions during Premier's estimates. As we've done that, it has always been clear what Mr. Dobell's obligations were. He's recognized for his work in the province of British Columbia, but he is also recognized for his work across the country.

It was pointed out quite clearly during estimates previously that Mr. Dobell had taken on a number of responsibilities. Even in the report that was done and released on Monday by Mr. Loukidelis, it was pointed out by Mr. Loukidelis that transparency to Mr. Dobell

took precedence — as it should — to perceived technicalities around the requirements of the Lobbyists Registration Act.

It is very important, I think, to recognize the contributions he has made in a whole array of activities — from activities with regard to the new RAV line, with TransLink, with the city of Vancouver, with the Pacific gateway, as a federal government liaison. He has helped both as a Deputy Minister to the Premier and as a special adviser to the Premier in a number of areas. He is recognized in the forest industry for the exceptional work he did on behalf of all of them and all of us in the softwood lumber negotiations.

I think we have to recognize that the energy, expertise, intelligence and integrity that Mr. Dobell brings to his job is something that we should be celebrating after 40 years of public service in this province, not attacking it as the Leader of the Opposition seems to be doing.

C. James: The only person playing politics with the civil service here is the Premier. No one else is playing politics other than the Premier. He likes to use those words to be able to avoid answering questions. Again, as he did yesterday…. I'm sorry it makes him uncomfortable to have to sit there and listen to my questions, but he's going to have to do that because that's what estimates is all about.

My question to the Premier is: is he satisfied with the job that Mr. Dobell has done as chair of the convention centre expansion?

Hon. G. Campbell: Mr. Dobell, as the Leader of the Opposition knows, had a number of tasks. One was to sit as the chair of the board of the Vancouver convention centre. He is no longer the chair. He now sits on the board.

I think that his service to the public generally has been exemplary. There is no question that the convention centre construction project has created some significant challenges both in terms of its complexity and the construction climate that it was carried out in. Having said that, I think it's important to note that it's going to generate significant and ongoing substantial benefits to the people of British Columbia.

I know that's what Mr. Dobell was most concerned about. I think British Columbians will be very pleased to see the kind of results that we get from the investment in what has been called a real job engine for British Columbia. Not only is the design something that has been recognized, but the environmental benefits are something that have been recognized. The economic benefits, the job creation benefits have all been recognized.

There have been significant cost escalations, particularly in materials that were required for the building of the convention centre. Obviously, Mr. Dobell couldn't control those cost escalations, but I am very pleased to say that the convention centre is going to be a huge asset for the people of British Columbia in the long term.

C. James: I'd just like to read a quote to the Premier: "There is no one in the private sector who would possibly maintain their job when one of their projects had doubled in price and is two years overdue." Does the Premier recall that statement he made when he was in opposition, and does he agree with that statement?

Hon. G. Campbell: I don't recall the specifics of that quotation. I do certainly recall making comments like that with regard to the fast ferries.

Having said that, hon. Chair, I want to be very clear about this. The convention centre itself is going to generate literally hundreds of millions of dollars of economic benefits. No one can be happy about the fact that it had some significant engineering challenges and that we've watched substantial price increases and cost escalations taking place with regard to the steel and a lot of the materials that are going to be used. I can tell you that already the convention centre is outperforming its initial pro formas. We are looking at hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands and thousands of jobs that will be directly connected.

I think it's fair to say that no one could have anticipated the kind of skill shortages we have in the province right now. The economy is working better than it's ever worked in the history of the province. That's good news for people who want work, who want jobs and who are watching as their incomes go up.

The overall benefits from the convention centre are substantial. It will increase the number of delegates. There have been a number of reports in the press about the amount of interest that has been generated in 2006. A study was done that suggested there would be an additional $240 million a year brought into the provincial economy. It's not just an economy in the lower mainland; it's an economy across the province. Almost 60 percent of all people that attend conventions in the lower mainland actually go to other parts of the province, either on their way to the convention or leaving the convention.

There are 27 events that would not be here were we not carrying out this project. I think that this is a project that Vancouverites, British Columbians and in fact people who are interested in our position on the Pacific will be very proud of in the future.

C. James: As the Premier himself points out, Mr. Dobell has overseen the convention centre and has overseen the convention centre jump in costs from $495 million to a range of $800 million. We still don't know what that range looks like, since we don't have the number. It's very clear that the costs have doubled, and we still continue to see Mr. Dobell maintain his job on the board and his job as special adviser on this project.

We've seen Mr. Dobell sign an accountability letter over the last four years, in each of the years '04-05, '05-06 and '06-07. It states: "I am accountable for ensuring the Vancouver Convention Centre Expansion Project achieves its specific objectives identified in the

We've heard the Premier talk about accountability being one of his most important traits and one of the most important things that he wants to bring to government. My question would be, then, to the Premier. How is it accountable to have Mr. Dobell remaining on the board after we see this kind of cost overrun while Mr. Dobell was in charge?

Hon. G. Campbell: Again, I think I pointed out some of the challenges that have been faced as we have moved through the construction of the convention centre. As we started the convention centre project in 2003, construction inflation was going at about 2 percent. Today cost escalations are between 10 and 12 percent.

Today we have a very strong board in place taking strong measures to ensure that the project is addressing the challenges that it has encountered. It's important to note that that board has construction, marketing and design expertise on it to ensure that we maximize the benefits. I can say again, as has been reported to the opposition, that the expectation is that the full cost of the convention centre will come in, in the range of $800 million.

Having said that, I think it's important to note that back in 1999 when the opposition was trying to design a convention centre, they felt that there would be no partnerships available. There would be no opportunities to bring in others to try and assist in ensuring that a convention centre was built. In fact, at one point they said that the province would go it alone if the cost was a full $900 million.

Having said that, I am not happy with the fact that we're dealing with these cost escalations. But I am happy with the board that's in place. I'm certainly happy with the economic opportunities that are being opened up and created by the convention centre. I'm very pleased with the marketplace's response to it when you have 27 conventions already that have been booked, which wouldn't fit into any existing facilities.

When we have the opportunity to generate between 6,000 and 7,000 employment years of activity through this facility, I think this is going to be a project that people in British Columbia point to with pride and that for years to come will be providing an economic return to all the people in the province.

C. James: As the Premier says often, the public will judge this government on its lack of accountability — lack of accountability on the Lottery Corp, lack of accountability on the convention centre. I can't imagine that the public is going to be reassured that no one is accountable for the doubling in cost of the convention centre.

One last question on this section, because it's clear that we're not going to get any kind of accountability from the Premier. I mentioned the accountability letters from Mr. Dobell around the convention centre and the fact that in '05, in '06 and in '06-07 he stated very clearly: "I am accountable for ensuring that the convention centre achieves its specific objectives."

In '07-08, interestingly enough, it now reads in their service letter that the board is accountable for ensuring that the Vancouver convention centre project achieves its specific objectives. My question is: why was Mr. Dobell accountable in those years, and why is the board now accountable?

Hon. G. Campbell: As the Leader of the Opposition should know, VCCEP falls under the Ministry of Tourism, Sport and the Arts. I can't tell you specifically about that particular change in the service plan, but it sounds like semantics to me. The board is responsible, and the Tourism, Sport and the Arts Ministry wanted to be clear that the board was responsible for that.

There were 11 hours of estimates debate where this could have been fully canvassed. I'm glad to get the information in the future from the minister if the opposition leader would like that.

C. James: One final question around Mr. Dobell. His contract expires tomorrow. Does the Premier plan to extend that contract as a special adviser?

Hon. G. Campbell: Mr. Dobell agreed to serve for two years. The two years will be up on the 30th of May of this year. Yesterday Mr. Dobell received the report — it was yesterday, wasn't it? — from Mr. Loukidelis. I think we should give him the opportunity to decide whether he has any interest in contracting in the future with the government.

I can tell you this, though, hon. Chair. The people and the province of British Columbia have been exceptionally well served by Mr. Dobell over the last two years — and indeed in the previous years in his public service. He was a strong driver of the Pacific gateway initiative that we have undertaken with the federal government.

He was a critical component of the softwood lumber negotiations that were taking place on behalf of the forest industry in British Columbia with the federal government and the United States. He has been a very strong advocate for the interests of our province in dealing with issues around the coastal forest industry.

Indeed, the coastal forest industry is encouraging Mr. Dobell to continue his work with the government. Should he decide that he should like to do that, then that would be something that we'll be able to negotiate in the future.

I do believe it's important to recognize that when we have excellent people in the public service making a significant contribution, we should recognize that, not just through remuneration but through treating them with respect.

I have the utmost respect for Mr. Dobell for all he's done for the province, not just in his role in the provincial government but in his role in TransLink, in his role with the city of Vancouver and in his role working with his colleagues across the country in trying to establish a strong and vital public service that meets all of our needs in an open democracy.

I feel fortunate that Mr. Dobell has been willing to work with us over the last two years, and I'm hopeful that he will be interested in continuing his contractual work with the province in the future.

C. James: I'll take that as a maybe, then, from the Premier. That was an answer that could have been given much quicker than the length of time that we're taking between questions.

I understand Mr. Dobell has to make a decision. My question was actually whether the Premier and government are going to look at extending his contract. But as I said, I'll take that as a maybe. It's about as close to an answer as I'm going to get from the Premier during these estimates.

I'd like to now move on to climate change and talk a little bit about climate change. There is no question that when the throne speech came out from this government in 2007, it was shocking to most British Columbians — shocking because the government had all of a sudden discovered climate change and had all of a sudden woken up after years of making statements that were against climate change, that showed no interest in climate change, that ruled out global warming as any kind of problem, let alone made any kind of a commitment.

All of a sudden we saw the Speech from the Throne from this Premier that made climate change his top priority. My question to the Premier is: when did the Premier decide to alter his previous policy directions and include climate change as a government concern?

First, let me go back and give the leader a little bit of background. The B.C. energy plan, the first B.C. energy plan under this government, was released in 2002. At that time, we pointed out that it should be a requirement that 50 percent of all energy be clean energy. In 2004 a climate action plan was brought forward by the government. I think there was something in the order of 40 steps that were undertaken in that plan.

The Ministry of Environment service plan pointed out that there were targets for greenhouse gas reductions in 2004. In 2004 we announced as a government the five great goals. We established the five great goals, including being recognized for environmental and sustainable management.

In 2006 the government's strategic plan pointed out reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. I think it's important to note that while provincial greenhouse gas emissions went up significantly between 2001 and 2007, in fact, government greenhouse gas emissions went down significantly in the same period of time — not enough to meet our goal of a 33-percent reduction, but it's been something that has been on the agenda for some time in government.

C. James: The reason that I asked those questions and started off with this question is because the Premier has been on record as ignoring climate change and in fact not agreeing with climate change. Just to remind him, in case he's forgotten some of his own quotes, in November 2002 the Premier said: "The only climate the Kyoto protocol signed by Canada is going to change is the economic climate." Again, in June 2002: "There has been little in the way of facts and a whole bunch in the way of rhetoric around climate change." These are quotes from the Premier himself.

In November 2006, during a speech to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong, the Premier said that offshore oil and gas reserves might be open to development within two or three years. "Stay tuned. You'll see opportunities expand." Again, in December '06: "No matter what we do" — this is regarding coal plants — "in British Columbia we won't have much impact on the world scene."

It's very clear that this government had an unbelievable change of heart, even if it's only in words, when we see those kinds of comments from the Premier months before the throne speech came out and surprised everyone.

My next question, then, to the Premier is: when did the government decide that it was going to set targets for greenhouse gas reduction?

Hon. G. Campbell: Well, I just actually went through some of the government's initiatives with my last answer. In 2004 the ministry service plan actually set greenhouse gas reduction targets. In 2006 we set greenhouse gas emission targets again.

I think that the Leader of the Opposition should just take a moment and listen to some of her own backbenchers with regard to her position on climate change. While we have been pursuing our goals with regard to climate change for some time, the Leader of the Opposition's own member points out: "We appear to have no plan or response or thought about climate change and Kyoto." That was the MLA for Nelson-Creston in 2005.

In October of 2006: "Our party has no idea how to deal with climate change." In April of 2006 the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows said: "The record of the last government" — i.e., the NDP government of the 1990s — "was not good on climate change."

We would be the last group to claim that we have met all of the challenges that are in front of us. However, this has been something that has been on the government's agenda. We laid out an aggressive plan in the throne speech of 2007. We are carrying that plan out. We're carrying it out in concert with the Pacific coast states, with other provinces, with industrial sectors and with individual citizens across the province.

I am confident that the initiatives we've undertaken will result not just in a substantial reduction in greenhouse gas emission by 2020, but we will have a plan in place that will meet goals on the way, in 2012 and 2016. The government will be carbon-neutral by 2010. And equally importantly, I think, as we pursue those goals, we will not just improve the quality of the environment and our air quality and reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions we have, but we will also increase

our opportunities for productivity gains and for competitiveness gains in British Columbia and in this jurisdiction.

C. James: The Premier can point fingers everywhere else, but whether he likes it or not, this is about his record and his government's record and what they've done on climate change and his own quotes on climate change. It's very clear that the Premier said one thing and did just the other. The Premier has put down words about climate change but actually in actions and in his other words was doing just the opposite and was trying to in fact say that climate change wasn't important for the government to pay attention to.

Just to get into more specifics from the Premier, could the Premier tell us what analysis was done to come up with a number for a 33-percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 — the first time the government has put a number on that? I'd like to know how that number was arrived at.

Hon. G. Campbell: I concur with the Leader of the Opposition that we should be judged on the basis of the results we get. Between 2000 and 2004 the government of British Columbia watched as our greenhouse gas emissions were actually reduced by 24 percent. The province continues to have the second-lowest per-capita greenhouse gas emissions with regard to other provinces in the country.

As we talked about how we move ahead, our province felt that it was critical that British Columbians be given the credit they were due for the work they have done. We set targets in 2007. We made a deliberate choice to set a goal that would take us 10 percent below the 1990 levels.

We made a choice to take some time to actually accomplish that goal, because we realized that we had to include all members of the public, various sectors of the economy and the government itself. We watched as, according to Environment Canada, greenhouse gas emissions for 2005 actually decreased by 2.4 percent. That was in spite of an economy that grew at 3.7 percent.

I think it's important for us to note that contrary to what the Leader of the Opposition is trying to lay ground for here, under her government, the NDP government, we watched as greenhouse gas emissions skyrocketed by 24 percent between 1991 and 2001.

We have an active and growing economy. This is the time, we believe, to actually set in place not just a significant and aggressive target for 2020, which gives the next generation and beyond — our grandchildren, in fact — an opportunity to live in a world that's similar and better than the world we live in today, as opposed to one that suffers under the various huge negative impacts that may be the result of climate change, which is caused by human activity.

Our choice to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 gives us the time that we need, gives us the opportunity to set targets for 2012, for the first steps. We've already set a target for the government of British Columbia to be carbon-neutral by 2010, to create the next steps by 2016 and to create the final steps by 2020.

We believe that it's an opportunity for British Columbians, in fact, to show the rest of the country how you can have an active and a vital economic jurisdiction which at the same time is improving the quality of the environment and is making a decision to make choices today which will benefit our grandchildren 30 and 40 years hence.

C. James: I have to talk about two of the statements that the Premier made. Was the Premier actually saying that we've had a real reduction in greenhouse gases from 2000 to now? If he is, I think he better clarify that and find out where that information comes from.

The second statement. Did I hear the Premier say that the only analysis they did was to pick a number that was 10 percent below the 1990s to get to the 33 percent?

Hon. G. Campbell: A matter of clarification, hon. Chair. The greenhouse gas emissions from the government of British Columbia actually were reduced between 2001 and 2004. What I said was that according to Environment Canada, not me, greenhouse gas emissions in B.C. for 2005 decreased by 2.4 percent. During that same year the economy grew by 3.7 percent.

Just to be clear again, under the previous government we watched as greenhouse gas emissions increased by 24 percent in spite of an economy that was effectively on its knees and not driving any particular investment activity.

The point I'm making, though, is that I think we have made a choice as a government. Having considered all the factors, we felt that it was important that we set a goal and a target for ourselves. We would actually provide the next generation, our grandchildren, with some opportunities, making decisions today that clearly would reduce greenhouse gases below the 1990 levels, which we believed was important.

I recognize that the Leader of the Opposition made a different choice. She thought we should freeze greenhouse gas levels at today's level. We disagree with that. We think that a reduction is far more important than that.

Moving in a deliberate, thoughtful and decisive manner towards a reduction of 33 percent by 2020 seemed to be a choice that we could make that would meet the needs of future generations as well as the needs of British Columbians today.

C. James: To come back to my specific question to the Premier: what specific analysis was done to pick the 33 percent number? That number could have come from anywhere, and surely the government didn't pull that number out of a hat. Surely the government came up with some kind of analysis to determine why they picked 33 percent.

Again I'd like to ask the Premier: what analysis was done? What reports, what briefing notes, what resources from other ministries, what reports from the outside were done for the Premier to pick 33 percent as his target?

Hon. G. Campbell: Obviously, we canvassed many experts and some jurisdictions that have set similar goals to the ones that we've done in British Columbia. We considered those views as we prepared our throne speech in 2007.

Let me just take a moment to read to the Leader of the Opposition some of the views that we've heard from people with regard to the plan that we set in place in 2007. "It is the most progressive plan that I've seen anywhere in North America for a start, and one of the best in the world. This is the way to go. This is great leadership. It is really super." That was Andrew Weaver, who is a representative on the international panel and a University of Victoria climatologist, in February of this year. Dr. Weaver also said that this is a plan that is doable and significant.

David Keith, the Canada research chair on energy and environment at the University of Calgary, who has worked as an atmospheric scientist at Harvard University, said on CBC radio on February 17: "I think it's right on."

Another well-known British Columbian, Dr. David Suzuki, said: "Maybe I'm just being Pollyanna, but I think this man is capable of making the kind of shift, and I have great hopes for it."

Governor Schwarzenegger from California: "I am pleased that British Columbia has joined the fight against climate change. I look forward to meeting with Premier Campbell and working with British Columbia on this critical issue."

Guy Dauncey, president of the B.C. Sustainable Energy Association: "Finally, after years when all governments in B.C. have been asleep at the switch, we have leadership. This is something to celebrate."

Lisa Matthaus, the Sierra Club spokeswoman: "We congratulate the province for recognizing the urgency of the science and also that battling global warming can be an economic opportunity."

Glen Ringdal, the New Car Dealers Association: "It's perfect timing for the industry, government and the consuming public to get together and make some real strides on curtailing greenhouse gases."

There are a number of initiatives that have been undertaken. As I mentioned earlier, hon. Chair, the government felt it was essential that we not just have a clear and unequivocal target, but that that target would take us below 1990 levels. We picked a 33-percent reduction from this current year's greenhouse gas emissions. We think it's achievable, and we think that British Columbians are generally excited about the opportunities that dealing with climate change presents.

C. James: That was a very long way of saying it appears that the government did pull it out of a hat, that there was no rationale to picking 33 percent. They talked, they looked at other numbers, and they picked 33 percent.

Perhaps I'll try to ask the Premier in a different way. I would expect that the government would have looked at a plan to carry out the 33-percent reduction before they picked the 33-percent reduction. My question to the Premier would be: what's the overarching government plan to actually reach that target of 33-percent reduction?

Hon. G. Campbell: It's a real opportunity to actually talk with the Leader of the Opposition about this plan because it's fairly comprehensive, and I think it's important for her to understand what we're trying to do. There were parts of the plan that were announced in the throne speech, and I'd just like to read from that. It's only about 15 pages, so…. No, I won't read from that.

The fact of the matter is that we established the plan in the throne speech. In the throne speech we pointed out that, number one, we start with the plan which is: what's our destination? Our destination is a 33-percent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions across the province by 2020. We said quite clearly in the throne speech that we would take steps to get there. The first step being set was 2012 and the second step was 2016.

There were a number of initiatives that we commented on specifically in the throne speech. One of them was that there would be a release of the energy plan. The energy plan has now been released. It is there for the Leader of the Opposition to see. It calls, for example, for a dramatic reduction in our demands for energy through conservation. It calls for us to look at new means of energy.

Again, it's an example, I think, where we've seen nothing but confusion from the opposition. We're very clear on this side of the House that we believe there's got to be significant….

There's a huge opportunity in terms of biofuels and bioenergy in the province. We believe that we have to put the power of the private sector behind these initiatives. To date we have $3.6 billion in private sector investment for clean power stemming from the B.C. Hydro 2006 hydro call.

We have been strong supporters of the Canada line, which will remove literally thousands of tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions. It's a $1.9 billion public-private partnership. The opposition has been opposed to that. We invested $200 million in the Forests for Tomorrow program. We believe that replanting is a significant opportunity in terms of creating carbon sinks in British Columbia.

Each ministry of government today is looking at opportunities for them to see a dramatic reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. The government believes that we should be leading with regard to this. We will. We intend to be carbon-neutral by 2010. I would expect that the government agencies will start initiating actions to assure that they also see a dramatic reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

We have joined with California, Washington, Oregon, Arizona and New Mexico in embracing California's tailpipe emission standards, which will see a dramatic reduction in tailpipe and greenhouse gas emissions from our transportation infrastructure. We are investing hundreds of millions of dollars in our public transportation system.

We have invested $25 million in an innovative clean energy fund, again, to encourage the private sector to come up with responses that deal with the problems that are established across the province in terms of climate change. We have a standing offer in terms of alternative energy, clean energy projects that have been initiated by B.C. Hydro. We have done a bioenergy call from B.C. Hydro.

Each area of government — in fact, areas where in the past people may not have thought about the opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions — is now being examined. We'll look at green hospitals. We'll look at green schools and how we can do that. We'll look at setting new building code standards, as we said, working with the construction industry and local governments to establish a building code across the province which reflects the need for us to reduce the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions.

We have launched a new LocalMotion fund in government that encourages our municipalities across British Columbia to find ways that they can reduce by redesigning their communities and thinking in different ways about their communities. They can reduce the transportation demands that we put on communities.

We know that when choices are provided to citizens, citizens take advantage of the choices. Whether it's through major initiatives like the major cycling initiatives that we've launched in the government or the urban redesign initiatives we're launching with local communities, which are meant to help encourage a new, sustainable kind of design that we have in the communities that we live in: all of those are part of an overarching plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 33 percent by 2020.

As you think about this, there are also some significant challenges we face in terms of jurisdictions. We have actually joined, as I mentioned, the western regional climate initiative, which creates a marketplace of 60-plus million people in terms of establishing a cap-and-trade system. We will have a climate secretariat in the government that will help to work across government. This is all ministries of government. No ministry is exempt from thinking about what their impacts are in terms of climate change.

We will work with all sectors of the economy as we look at how we can reduce their impacts. We've done that with the energy industry. We're doing it with the forest industry. We'll do it with retailers, the tourism industry and the building industry, etc.

Every industry, every ministry is engaged. We're going to meet directly with the Crown corporations and set goals for them as well. We will all be carbon-neutral by 2010.

That outlines some of the specific actions we're taking. I would refer the members opposite to the throne speech. I think if they start at about page 14, the climate initiatives are probably completed by about page 25. There are opportunities for them to see the broad outlines.

Currently, we have a cabinet committee in place that has been meeting with non-profit organizations, industry groups and ministries of government, and we have been asking for their comments on how we can meet our sectoral and interim targets for 2012 and 2016. I can tell you, hon. Chair, that I think the energy that has been unleashed in the public sector with regard to this, and indeed, in the community at large with regard to this, is going to be a very positive thing for the entire province.

C. James: Well, I appreciate the Premier going through his throne speech. The reason we're asking these questions is because the public doesn't, in fact, trust the Premier's throne speeches, because they've heard them before. They've heard many throne speeches from this Premier. They heard the children's throne speech from this Premier that, in fact, showed the largest cuts to Children and Family's budgets that we've seen. They've seen a seniors budget from this Premier that saw 5,000 long-term care beds not built.

So I can tell you that there's a lot of skepticism out there. Many of those people that the Premier listed and quoted are expressing concerns about any kind of real action from this government on climate change. Full of words and full of photo ops. While I appreciate that the Premier is going to enjoy his time with the Governor, I think it's important that we see action.

The only portion that I would agree with is that the public has shown leadership. It's the lack of leadership from this government that we've seen. My question to the Premier would be: when is the government going to be introducing legislation to implement the climate change targets?

The Chair: I believe there has been a ruling earlier about legislation. Please rephrase your question.

C. James: Does the Premier think it's important to ensure that those targets are met? How will he do that?

Hon. G. Campbell: I appreciate the question from the Leader of the Opposition. I think the important thing to note is that when we established these goals and objectives that we have every intention of meeting them. We believe the only way that we can be sure to meet them is to work with people and make sure that we lay out a plan that is both doable and successful.

The question is: will there be a regime in place that will require us to meet those targets? The answer is yes. We have not yet set that regime in place. It would not make sense, obviously to any of us, to establish hard caps for emission reductions but have no penalties for non-compliance.

It also doesn't make sense to set those goals without having the opportunity to meet directly with industry and people across the province about how we do that. We are in the midst, in terms of the cabinet, of working that through and dealing with industry sectors. We will have an opportunity to lay out some preliminary plans. By August of this year we will set a regional cap for Washington, Oregon, California, New Mexico,

Arizona and the province of British Columbia. We'll be participating in that through the western regional climate initiative.

On May 23 we became part of the climate registry. The climate registry establishes a common means of measuring greenhouse gas emissions. With those measures, we are then in a position where we can start looking at the appropriate development of a cap-and-trade system. Of course, if you have a cap-and-trade system, there's got to be a regulatory regime in place that deals with non-compliance, and that will be a critical component of that.

Having said all that, as we deal with the entire province, I think that the real leadership should come from the provincial government at the outset. So at the outset we have set a goal of the government being carbon-neutral by 2010. We will build actions with regard to greenhouse gas reductions into the performance plans of the various ministries. We will ensure that letters of expectation with Crown corporations deal with that directly. We believe that there will be lots of opportunities for us to actually not just meet our targets but to exceed them.

When you think about the opportunities that this presents, it presents opportunities for us to think not just of our grandchildren and the future, but of ways that we can do this that enhances the economy of British Columbia.

We have significant alternative energy innovation taking place in this province today. A number of significant opportunities are created, not just in terms of hydrogen energy, but in terms of many, many other kinds of green energy. We've seen significant opportunities established with regard to run-of-the-river hydro energy, which is carbon-neutral. We've set goals for ourselves with regard to reducing the demands that we put on the system and being energy self-sufficient by 2016.

I think what's critical here is that the government has been recognized as setting goals for ourselves and achieving them. We set a goal of balancing the budget by the third complete budget that we had as a government. We accomplished that goal. We set the goal of a one-third reduction in our regulatory regime. We accomplished that.

As we look to the future, when we think of the opportunities that the western regional climate action initiative presents to us as we set our targets up and down the west coast for the region, the province will then be in a position where we can establish our own regime here that will be within those targets. I believe that will help us succeed not just in meeting the goals and objectives that we set for ourselves but in encouraging substantial economic activity as well.

C. James: We haven't been able to find out from the Premier when he decided that he'd include climate change in the throne speech, why he had the sudden conversion and included it in the throne speech. I'd like to ask when the decision was made that climate change initiatives would not be included in the budget.

Hon. G. Campbell: I've said this before, and I will say this again, just so that the members opposite can hear it. Actually, the government was setting greenhouse gas reduction targets in 2004. We have continued to pursue those targets. We had a plan with regard to climate change in 2004. We have in our service plans greenhouse gas reductions, which have been in place. So we've been setting targets for some time.

I think when the member opposite raises the issue with regard to the budget, it is important to recognize the investments that are being made with regard to improving and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

First, in the 2007 budget there was $103 million of direct environmental initiatives, including the establishment of the new environmental secretariat; including $14 million for air quality improvements; including in fact the initiatives we took with regard to the hybrid cars that were there; the tax initiatives for Energy Star windows, for doors, for furnaces; $25 million for the innovative clean energy fund; $127 million over two years through B.C. Hydro conservation programs.

That's on top of the $1.9 billion which is being invested in the Canada line; $170 million which is available for the Evergreen line; $89 million for hydrogen fuelling stations and 20 fuel cell buses; $10 million to purchase hybrid vehicles for the government fleet; $84.5 million to expand transit services; $62 million to expand cycling networks; $40 million for the LocalMotion fund; and on top of that, $144 million for the Forests for Tomorrow for reforestation; $56 million for enhanced salvaging in the forest industry; $23 million for enhanced forest fire fighting.

Hon. Chair, I think that sometimes unfortunately the opposition looks right by some of the exceptional expertise that we have in British Columbia within our own ministries. The Ministry of Forests is recognized not just in British Columbia but around the continent for the excellent work they're doing with regard to adaption strategies — a significant issue for us to deal with.

There's significant work being done in alternative energy division of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, and of course our Ministry of Environment has been carrying out a number of significant steps.

We've made progress since the throne speech, and we'll make more progress as we move through the months and the years ahead. I think British Columbians can know that their public dollars are certainly being invested in a thoughtful way to help accomplish our goal, which is reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Having said that, I think what's critically important for the opposition to understand is that this won't happen just with public dollars. It won't happen just by the government making pronouncements. It only happens when we work in partnership with the private sector, with the non-profit sector, and when we encourage the private sector to unleash the power of their investments in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

To date we have watched as over $6 billion of provincial and private funding has gone, which will

directly impact and have a direct positive benefit on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in British Columbia. We're going to continue to build on that.

As the Leader of the Opposition will be aware if she has examined the throne speech, the Finance Ministry will be looking at opportunities there. Part of the budget process as we go through from now till the next budget will be including that as part of the development as we look at the strategies that are being developed in ministries across the government.

I believe that we will be recognized not just for what our stated goals are but for the progress we make towards those goals in just one year — between now and the next budget in 2008.

C. James: I think the Premier forgot to tell his Finance Minister that, because after the budget came out and the Finance Minister received many questions about why there wasn't a significant investment on climate change in the budget, she said: "Well, that will be coming next year, not this year, because we didn't have time to plan for it."

It's pretty clear that the Premier just forgot to tell the rest of his cabinet after he created his climate change plan on the back of a napkin.

I want to talk about a couple of specifics on contradictions of this government. The energy plan that the government produced didn't rule out offshore oil and gas, so my question to the Premier would be: is offshore oil and gas still an option? And how does the government believe that offshore oil and gas fits with B.C.'s climate change plan?

Hon. G. Campbell: I refer the member opposite to the B.C. Energy Plan: A Vision for Clean Energy Leadership, which was released just recently. It highlights a number of the issues that we're taking to deal with — not just with climate change but energy sustainability and economic opportunity in the province.

On page 31 there is a clear statement with regard to offshore oil and gas. It's that we'll continue to work with the federal government to deal with the offshore exploration and development and reiterate the intention to simultaneously lift the provincial one. Should the results of our efforts provide a scientifically sound and environmentally responsible way to proceed, we'll participate in marine and environmental planning to effectively manage the marine area.

I think what's really important as we look at this is that we're already underway with major ocean marine planning, with coastal planning. We're looking at ocean health as well as looking at dramatically reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. What's critically important is that everything that's going to take place in the province is going to be measured as we look to the 33-percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2020.

We will work with the energy industry, as we already have. We've announced specific actions that we'll be taking with regard to flaring. We're working directly with the pipeline industry. We will work with the forest industry. We will work with the tourism industry.

All of those industries and each of us as individual citizens will be included in dealing with and meeting the goals and objectives and targets we've set as a province. I think we've shown in the past that when British Columbians set goals for themselves, they don't just attain those goals. They far exceed their expectations in reaching those goals.

Offshore oil and gas. We will continue with the policy that we have enunciated. We'll continue to ensure that if it is to be developed, it will be developed in a scientifically sound and environmentally safe way. We will do that in consultation with the coastal communities, as we've always said, in consultation with the federal government.

I can tell the member opposite that regardless of the economic activity that is taking place in the province between now and 2020, we will meet our target of a 33-percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. We are for targets; we are for ensuring that those targets are met.

We are not for intensity-based strategies. We think that intensity base allows for expansion of greenhouse gas emissions. We're for setting targets and for meeting those targets, and that's what this government intends to do.

C. James: The Premier mentions the energy plan. Well, the energy plan already has holes in it. That's very clear, and that's my next question to the Premier. How does he deal with the fact that his energy plan says no to burning conventional coal, and yet the Graymont project will look at burning conventional coal and increasing greenhouse gas emissions, very clearly? I'd like the Premier to talk a little bit about that contradiction.

It has only taken a few months for the Premier to contradict his own energy plan, his own climate change plan. So it's no surprise that the public has some skepticism.

Hon. G. Campbell: I think this is an important matter, and I think it would be worthwhile for the Leader of the Opposition to actually read what the government has said and what the commitments are that we've made.

The Leader of the Opposition has clearly said no to coal. Members of her own caucus have evidently disagreed with her. One, the member for Vancouver-Hastings, has said that even in coal-fired generation there are opportunities to include clean technology. He's also pointed out that coal technologies can capture and store emissions by being developed right here in this country.

We have been very clear that we will require zero greenhouse gas emissions from any coal, thermal or electricity facilities. We've said that it will have to be 100 percent sequestered. We are also very clear that when we deal with these issues, it's important for the facts to be made available.

There is a project which is currently under the environmental assessment office process right now. It will have to satisfy the process before recommendations for any certification will be considered. The EAO process may include how the company plans to capture greenhouse gas emissions if the plant wants to use thermal coal as a heat source.

I've also been informed by the Minister of Environment that one of the issues being pursued by that particular company is the potential for using bioenergy as a heat source.

At any rate, it will have to fit under a strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 33 percent by the year 2020. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and the Minister of Environment will make the final decision based on recommendations that may also suggest changes to the project's proposal.

Rather than jump at a conclusion by (1) restating or misstating the government's goals and (2) jumping to a conclusion with regard to the proposal, it seems to me to make sense to wait for the proposal to come through to see what the actual results of the environmental assessment process are.

The Leader of the Opposition can know without question that regardless of what the results of that will be, there will be a 33-percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in British Columbia by 2020.

C. James: Just to follow up on that comment by the Premier. When I take a look at the contradictions…. You know, the Premier talks about the fact that we should wait for the process to occur. Well, the companies have made it very clear that they're looking at conventional coal as one of the heat sources. They've made that very clear.

I would think that the Premier, with his interest in making sure that he is accountable and is providing assurance to business, would be very clear from the government's point of view whether burning conventional coal is on or not. That would certainly be fair to the businesses themselves.

If the government is going to say no to burning conventional coal, as it appears they did in their energy plan, you would think that he would want to be upfront with business in British Columbia and say: "That's not on. Don't go down that path; don't spend your resources; don't spend your energy going there. We're not going to approve it. As government, we don't believe in that."

I find it incredible that the government would not take any kind of leadership role on this piece. I have to say that this has been the kind of attitude that we've had from this government and certainly the kind of attitude that we've had throughout these estimates. The Premier has taken every opportunity that he can to avoid answering questions, just as government has done for the last number of months.

We've seen this Premier use court cases, we've seen the Premier use FOI, and we've certainly seen him over this last day and a half drag the puck to avoid answering questions. I'd like to just give the Premier an analysis of those numbers. If we take a look at the time we spent this morning, we had 110 minutes of question time available to us this morning. The Premier's dead-air time accounted for 63 minutes — you know, one more example of how this government wants to avoid answering questions.

I just find it incredible and disappointing because this would have been an opportunity for the Premier to actually be able to be accountable, to be open, to be transparent and to answer questions. Instead, we saw the Premier refuse to answer any kind of critical questions.

If we summarize what we've seen through these estimates, we've seen that the Premier won't answer at all about whether his staff are involved in political dirty tricks. He certainly won't answer anything about cabinet accountability, whether it's at the Lottery Corporation or otherwise. He won't answer any kinds of questions to do with investigations that his government is undergoing, apart from the court case, but in fact investigations that his government is undergoing.

Last but not least, he won't commit to a fall session unless it suits his political interests. So it's been disappointing; it's been stonewalling at its extreme. I think the government has set records and the Premier has set records through these estimates, and I find it incredibly disappointing.

I ask through you, hon. Chair. My question to the Premier is: how is all of that an example of this Premier's commitment to openness and transparency?

Hon. G. Campbell: I move the committee rise, report resolution and ask leave to sit again.

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

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

S. Fraser: I'd like to just offer, for the minister and staff…. I'm going to continue with some local issues and deal with that first and try to do that in a timely manner so that I can finish this off towards the end of the day. We'll bring that closure, I guess, to this debate. With that, I'll leave it to you.

D. MacKay: I have a couple of questions. First of all, I'd like to go back to Nisga'a, because Nisga'a is a treaty that was signed off seven years ago. It's an ongoing treaty. There are updates to be done.

I'd like to ask the minister: what role does the province have in the financial bookkeeping for the Nisga'a treaty that was implemented and has been in place now for seven years? What financial role does the province have with the ongoing financial obligations between the province and the federal government?

Hon. M. de Jong: Here is some of the raw data that I can provide. Before I do that, though, I wanted to just comment on the point that the member made at the outset. He characterized the treaty as establishing an ongoing relationship. I think that's both true and important for people to consider when we talk about treaties.

There is this notion that the treaty represents a moment in time that crystallizes a relationship and then that's that. In fact, it is very different. It is, as the member characterized it, the beginning of a new relationship that is governed by a particular document. So I think the member is correct in pointing out that there is an ongoing relationship.

Now he's asked about the fiscal component to that. The treaty itself provided for a capital transfer of $190 million. Canada was responsible for $175.6 million of that; B.C., $14.4 million. That capital transfer was to be paid out over 15 years with interest. To date I am advised that Canada has provided a total of $112.8 million and that B.C. has provided $9.3 million.

D. MacKay: Yes, thank you to the minister for that response. I have a copy of schedule A, which is the actual capital transfer amounts to Nisga'a from the federal government as well as the province. It would suggest here that in 2007 the province transferred $989,373.15 to Nisga'a.

That begs the question, because in schedule B of the Nisga'a treaty there is a loan repayment amount. I wonder if the minister could tell me how much, if anything, the Nisga'a have repaid to the federal government from the obligations contained in the treaty.

Hon. M. de Jong: I am further advised that there were approximately $50 million in loans relating to the negotiations of the treaty. The arrangement required this amount to be repaid to Canada as the lender over 15 years with interest. Operationally, that happens in a given year when Canada deducts the loan repayment from the capital transfer payment. To date I am advised that the Nisga'a have made loan repayments of $12 million.

D. MacKay: I wonder if I could ask the minister: are those actual cash repayments to the federal government, or is that money just being deducted from the cash transfer payments from the federal government to the Nisga'a?

D. MacKay: If I read that correctly, then, the federal government's requirement to pay $12,023,467 on the seventh anniversary of Nisga'a…. The $12 million — should that have been $14 million, if in fact they were to repay? Or has the $2 million which was to be repaid by Nisga'a been taken from the $12 million that shows up on schedule A?

Hon. M. de Jong: I want to verify the figure. The principle, though, is as the member points out. The amount the Nisga'a would be entitled to under the fiscal transfer is amount X minus the loan repayment amount. I want to verify, in the example that the member has given drawing from the schedule, whether the amount he has quoted is the gross figure prior to the deduction or the net figure after the deduction.

D. MacKay: I'm reading from schedule A, and it is the schedule of capital transfer amounts from the federal government to the Nisga'a. I don't know if that excludes the $2 million that they were to repay this fiscal year or not.

Hon. M. de Jong: Our belief is that the figure that the member is quoting would be the gross amount and that the loan repayment amount would be deducted from that. I do want to verify that.

D. MacKay: I will look forward to the answer to that question. I'd like to move from Nisga'a now and on to the $100 million first nations trust fund. Bill 11 was introduced in the House and passed on March 28, when it received royal assent. There were a few con-

cerns I had around accountability and the lack of accountability to the taxpayers who had provided $100 million to that particular trust fund. I still have some concerns around that.

I'm pleased because…. There was no reporting back to government. The reporting was to the board of members that comprised the new relationship trust. The taxpayers and the general population of the province are not privy to the information contained in that reporting-out. That was the concern I had then, and I have the concern now.

I'm pleased to see that this morning, in response to a question from the member for North Coast, the minister indicated that the first phase of the work has been completed. The trust plan is 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 languages, $750,000 on youth and elders and $1.5 million on specific economic development initiatives.

I'm pleased to see that it is moving ahead. I have to assume — the fact that we're moving ahead with this — that there is a board in place. A question I asked when the bill was introduced and I'll ask again now: do we have any idea what the per-diem rate is for the members that comprise the board that looks after this $100 million trust?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm relying on memory, which is that the trust instrument, the trust deed, does provide for remuneration or per diems for the trustees. We're trying to obtain what the actual amount has been over the course of the past number of months.

D. MacKay: That information will be made available to me. Is that what I gather from that answer?

Hon. M. de Jong: Yes. Section 11 of the New Relationship Trust Act — it's actually in the legislation — makes it clear that a director must not accept remuneration from that corporation other than the following two amounts: "(a) remuneration for reasonable travelling and out of pocket expenses necessarily incurred by the director in discharging his or her duties; (b) a daily amount, established by the directors in consultation with the First Nations Leadership Council, for each day on which the director performs directorial services…."

Further, the member may have heard me comment earlier today that we are expecting the first annual report, which presumably will include some financial statements, on or before July 31 of this year.

D. MacKay: That highlighted my next question having to do with the report that's due on July 31. I'm just a little bit confused about the comments there that they will report out in a formal sense. Report out to whom? Is it to the aboriginal community themselves, or will they report out to government with the information containing the per-diem rate?

Hon. M. de Jong: My recollection is that it is first of all a public report. The obligation to complete and present that report is set out in the act itself and in the trust deed, but I'm trying to locate the appropriate reference and authority for that statement.

D. MacKay: Just to clarify my point and why I'm pursuing this. During the debate on Bill 11, I asked if there was any accountability back to government. If I recall, the answer I got at the time was that this was a trust fund that was set aside for the aboriginal people. They were reportable to the aboriginal community and not government. I had some concerns around that.

When I asked about the per-diem rate…. This was the first trust fund where I saw there was a per-diem rate provided for. The northern trust does not allow for a per-diem rate for members of communities who make up those boards. So I was concerned about the per-diem rate for this Bill 11.

What I'm hoping is that this information will be made available publicly and not just to the aboriginal community. After all, it was taxpayers' money. With that answer, I will conclude my comments. I look forward to the answer.

Hon. M. de Jong: We have verified that it is a public report, and I'll endeavour to ascertain the more specific response around the question of the per diems.

C. Wyse: I have a series of questions around local consultation. I recognize immediately that many of these things are in different ministries, but they are directly and indirectly involved with that process.

The first one is with regards to the Hat Creek development in the Bonaparte first nations. The chief of that area, Chief Mike Retasket, spoke to me several weeks ago with regards to ensuring that adequate and proper consultation would occur between the government of British Columbia and his community.

Specifically, for the record, I had written the Minister of Mines on this particular item at the end of March. At this moment in time I do not have a response from the Minister of Mines on that item. I do wish to hear from this minister on assurances that the Bonaparte first nations group will be provided with all due consultations upon this particular project.

Hon. M. de Jong: Two things. I can assure the member that the Crown — whichever department of government is involved — will continue to take very seriously the obligations to consult and, where appropriate, accommodate the interests of first nations.

I can further assure the member that I intend to communicate that directly to Chief Retasket when I meet with him. I think we are scheduled to meet inside of ten days. I appreciate the heads-up the member has provided to me today around his, and I'm sure the Chief's, interest in this matter.

C. Wyse: I'm appreciative of the comment that is made by the minister on this item. This particular issue is of great significance to this group within my riding. They have got many issues that are long outstanding around this particular possible development.

As the MLA from that area, I do want to clearly be on record to have shown that this conversation has taken place. Once more, I do wish to acknowledge the rapidity of closing the loop on this item by the minister.

The second item that I wish to draw to the minister's attention is ambulance-related issues in the Chilcotin with the Tsilhqot'in National Government. All five chiefs have written the Minister of Health on occasion with regard to elders from the Chilcotin being transported outside the normal range of where health care would be provided to them — that being Williams Lake.

In particular, I'm referring to the Xeni Gwet'in in the Nemiah Valley. These elders do not speak English. The hospital where they normally would receive care has attempted to provide translators.

What happens when air ambulance is used to cover for…. When Alexis Creek paramedic station is shut down, which it frequently is, the air ambulance transports these elders to such places as Squamish. Therefore, the distance, as well as the ability of the community to meet their elders and to get them back home, becomes very complicated.

As well, it affects the health care and well-being of the elders. The chiefs of all of the communities of the Chilcotin are concerned about the longevity, the outstanding length of time, for the government to find a resolution for keeping the road ambulance available.

My question to the minister is: what advice does he have that he may bring to the table to address this particular issue on behalf of the Tsilhqot'in First Nation chiefs?

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for the question and for highlighting some of the unique challenges faced by people who reside in more remote communities and, in particular, the even more unique challenges confronted by people, elders, for whom those challenges are enhanced because of linguistic and cultural differences.

It must be a very daunting thing indeed to come out of a very beautiful but very remote part of British Columbia, to be thrust into a very urban setting and to be forced to try to communicate in a language that one is unfamiliar with.

The good news, I suppose, is that flowing from the first nations health plan that was first signed off on in November of last year and the subsequent announcement of two weeks ago — where actual federal funding has been secured — some of these very issues are being addressed.

The challenge, of course, will be to make sure that they are addressed on the ground in ways that make a difference in the lives of people. But I can alert the member and ask that he will pass along to his constituents and the leaders within the communities that he has referred to some of the specific actions that are prioritized in the health plan.

There's the establishment of a first nations health council, the appointment of an aboriginal physician representative to the office of the provincial health officer, the establishment of the first nations health advisory committee and the establishment of a provincewide health partners group. Then there's a series of more specific action items.

The one that I think will capture the member's attention in respect of the issue that he has raised here is a specific commitment and objective to improve first-responder programs in rural and remote first nations communities. That is specifically highlighted, as I say. As of two weeks ago, it now has dollars.

The aggregate figure, as between the province and the federal government, is $24 million per year in additional directed funding. That's the good news — to put that money to work accomplishing the specific action items and objectives, some of which I have just referred to.

There is, of course, additional work relating to the establishment of an e-health network that would be accessible in some of the more remote communities. But it will be helpful to know — we don't have to wait, of course, until this time next year — the extent to which the first nations health plan and now the funding that has been attached to it is actually making a difference in easing some of the tensions and challenges faced by first nations, and particularly elders in first nations.

It was a big step — both the health plan and the funding announcement of a couple of weeks ago — because it signals a realization, I believe, on the part of the federal government that whilst they continue to have, obviously, a primary responsibility in terms of the relationship with Canada's and B.C.'s aboriginal peoples, they are perhaps not the best-equipped to deliver those services.

To see a measure of coordination take place between the two levels of government and the first nations via the First Nations Leadership Council is, I think, a very positive step forward. The challenge now is to ensure that that administrative step forward is matched by similar advances on the ground for the people they're designed to serve.

C. Wyse: I'm appreciative of hearing the good news, and I assure you that that information will get back to the leadership of the bands that I've been referring to.

However, I'd be negligent if I didn't also draw to the attention of the minister that this issue may be broader than just funding. This shortage and difficulty for this particular paramedic station, as well as one a little further out on the highway at Anahim Lake, have been ongoing for years.

I've received the information, but my question was around looking for the direct support of the minister at various tables in actually coming up with a solution that will work out in the Chilcotin. I leave that, because the minister is going to get another opportunity.

The next area where I wish to go with the minister once more involves consultation. It also happens to involve the Chilcotin, and it involves the chiefs from the Tsilhqot'in National Government — again, all of

them. They are in the general areas of forestry, in that particular ministry, and then in mining and oil and gas exploration in the Nechako Basin.

The Nechako Basin, for the minister's information, is that same geological feature that starts up in the Peace country, but it comes down into the Chilcotin. The geology suggests that there likewise may be the potential for oil and gas exploration, and there are also aspects around mining.

Given that aspect of it, my discussions with the leadership from this part of my riding indicate that an extensive improvement upon consultation with them upon these items that I have mentioned is required from the various ministries that I've referred to.

The situation that exists with the Cariboo in general and Cariboo South in particular is that without this process proceeding, any possibility of development or use — however you want to talk about these types of resources — is not going to proceed in any type of a timely fashion. The situation that develops, in my judgment, ends up putting the groups with all sorts of varied interests not necessarily sitting around in the fashion that we would like to see occurring.

Once more over to the minister. I'm looking for his assurance that an adequate consultation process is occurring across the various ministries with these first nations communities.

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for the question. I take the question very seriously. I want to offer that assurance and use this forum and this exchange to do so, to reinforce the seriousness with which we as a government and the various departments within government take the legal obligations — and, actually, an obligation that we feel goes even beyond that — to work cooperatively with first nations to develop economic opportunities, to effect genuine reconciliation. Because I know the spirit with which the question has been asked and the interest that the member has in this, I'll also take advantage of the opportunity to candidly provide a little beyond that initial answer.

The member mentioned forestry, mining, and oil and gas. In my days as the Forests Minister, I spent a fair bit of time in Cariboo-Chilcotin, in Williams Lake and Quesnel. We did, in those early days of what were then called forest and range agreements, now forest and range opportunity agreements…. Some of the first ones were in the Cariboo.

It was something of a leap of faith for the first nations that did sign on. I think some of them received a lot of negative commentary from some other aboriginal groups for doing it. I've always been very appreciative of the fact that some of the leadership there were prepared to step forward and say: "We're prepared, over the course of a five-year agreement…." As one first nations leader said: "It's like a suit. I'm going to try it on. If I don't like it, I'll either take it off or get a new suit."

I thought that has been very helpful. Some good relationships have developed there and some opportunities. They were, of course, the first example in the country of resource revenue-sharing with first nations of this sort. All of that provided something of a foundation.

We have — and the member knows this, and I say this respectfully — encountered in some parts of the region a significantly different reaction. While I will always be respectful of the choice peoples and leadership can make about how they wish to advance their particular claim or interest, I want to be very forthright with the member about how at a certain point two things will happen, I think, as a natural consequence of the desire we as a government have and people in the province have to advance things.

At a certain point, if the answer from a group is always no — "No, we don't want to talk," or "No, we'll talk, but we're not interested in advancing the agenda" — eventually one's attention gets directed elsewhere. Just as we, as government, are very mindful of the obligations that exist by the jurisprudence, by the constitution and by our own desire through things like the new relationship and new relationship accord….

I would say this candidly as well. The courts have also spoken clearly about the fact that consultation does not equal veto. Consultation does not equal an unfettered ability to say no or frustrate the planning process in perpetuity.

I'm being careful with my comments because I think we're at a crucial stage in our relationship with aboriginal peoples right across the province. We have done, collectively, a very good job in advancing that, and the work of the First Nations Leadership Council has been instrumental in that.

However, there are still some people and some leaders who are suspicious of what the intention is here, and I think sometimes that suspicion reveals itself in a reluctance to sit down at the table. I hope that we are either at a point or close to arriving at a point where the government's credentials as a body intent and committed to effecting genuine reconciliation, working in partnership to develop economic opportunity and improving conditions on the ground are beyond doubt.

That doesn't mean we won't make mistakes. It doesn't mean there won't be differences of opinion. But I hope that as we move forward, there will be a general acceptance of the proposition that we are intent on working with first nations in ways that we historically haven't seen in this province to ensure that they become full members of our economic life or social life and that the socioeconomic gap that has separated aboriginal peoples for too long is bridged.

I apologize. That's a much longer answer than perhaps the question required, but I thought it important in the context of the area of the province that the member represents and the area that we are talking about. The member knows full well that it is an area in which that relationship has at times been very challenged, with a variety of governments in a variety of circumstances. I think we're making progress, but there's a great deal more progress to be made.

C. Wyse: I'd like to acknowledge the response from the minister. That will finish the time that I have, but I would be negligent if I didn't leave with the minister, in addition to the detailed response he gave me….

There will be first nations communities that in my term of office, which is approximately two years…. They've had forms submitted on their behalf that did not have their consultation in forest-related projects that would have gone on to the federal government. That type of an aspect didn't help deal with the feelings that the minister has identified.

With that bit of information to leave, I appreciate the consideration that the minister has given to this, and I turn it over to my colleague.

S. Simpson: I appreciate the opportunity to spend a few minutes with the minister discussing a specific issue.

As the minister may know, my constituency of Vancouver-Hastings has a very significant urban aboriginal population. There's a whole array of issues related to that population that clearly are in play right now. I'm sure, in his discussion around urban aboriginal issues, he understands the frustration that some of the leadership in Vancouver and in other urban areas feel in terms of their concerns about whether their voices are being heard necessarily in the same way that the voices of the leadership council and others are being heard.

I certainly get that reflected to me quite often about dealing with the very complex and very challenging issues of downtown Vancouver and all the things that arise from that.

But I respect the fact that we don't have very much time, and I'm going to leave much of that aside and focus on a very specific issue around my constituency in East Vancouver. It involves the native youth centre in Vancouver, which is proposed to be built at the corner of Commercial and Hastings.

The minister will know there was a ribbon-cutting a year or so ago, I believe, around this. It's a $46 million project being led by urban native youth and others. Of that money, the city has committed $2 million, and their money is on the table. There was discussion around dollars in the form of about $17 million of federal money, about $11 million of provincial money and then the rest of the funds to be made up from private sources.

In my discussions with urban native youth, I know they've been feeling a little bit of frustration around this. The project has been about four or five years to get to this point, and they are not totally confident about where it is in the mix right now. I wonder if the minister could tell us where the province is at in terms of its commitment to the native youth centre and in terms of funding for the native youth centre.

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for the question. He's right about the project and the interest, and it is a potentially very exciting project. I recall meeting with the proponents on I think two separate occasions — certainly one, and perhaps a second occasion. At one of those meetings I presented some ideas that I had. I don't want to, as I tried not to with the project proponents….

I think part of the reason they're feeling frustrated — aside from the obvious, which is that there are no shovels in the ground on the youth centre — relates to the fact that they must be left with a bit of a feeling of: "If we can get this money, maybe we can get that money, and if we get that money, maybe we can get the other money." Everyone's pretty good at saying: "Whose money have you got locked down?"

I'm not sure we've got 20 million bucks, and $17 million, $18 million…. Of course, we have to think of it not just in terms of the construction of the site, but a facility of that sort undoubtedly is going to involve some operational costs as well. So I think the member knows and would agree that we have to examine it from that point of view, not purely from the side of capital.

The land that the city has on the table…. I drove by the site a few months ago. I think it was formerly or will remain Petro-Canada lands. Maybe the member can tell me this. I asked someone once if there were any environmental issues around construction on the site. I don't think I ever got an answer, but he may know more about that.

I also asked whether or not there was any possibility of involving, on the capital side at least, a partner and whether the numbers could be improved — and I think the member knows what I mean by that — by incorporating some smaller commercial component in the building.

I know it's a youth centre, so you would want the structure to be primarily focused around that. But is there a possibility of generating some sort of revenue stream or involving a private financier on the capital side? I think there was some reluctance, quite frankly, on the part of the project team to look at that or to go down that path.

That's fair enough, but I don't want the member leaving our discussion today…. I could probably provide the member with some general assurance: we're looking at it, and stay tuned. I'm not sure where I'd find the $18 million to $20 million at this point to advance the project as speedily as I think the proponents would hope.

S. Simpson: I appreciate the minister's frankness in his answer on this. I believe their expectation was, or their hope was, that the provincial commitment would be about $11 million. That was what they were looking for, and $17 million from the feds. Then they were looking at trying to generate around $15 million out of foundations and other private sources.

The minister's right when he says that this is one of those — that everybody's got dollars contingent on somebody else's money. The problem they have right now is having somebody provide some leadership among the funders there. My hope would be that the province might provide that leadership role.

The other point I would make, in my discussions with the executive director of Urban Native Youth, who are one of the leaders on this project…. I think

they fully understand that the notion of getting the province to write an $11 million cheque tomorrow is pretty slim. That's not in.

But they would like to be able to have a discussion about whether we can fund this thing over three years. Can provincial commitments come over a number of years with whatever the dollars are — a commitment that says: "Yes, but let's talk about whether there are other revenue streams and other kinds of issues"? Some of the issues the minister has raised.

The sense I have is that they're feeling like the discussions they're having are kind of…. In their view, it's this passing-the-buck discussion that's going on rather than somebody sitting down and saying: "Okay, how do we get this deal done, and what does it take to get the deal done and to start talking in much more practical terms?"

Hopefully, if the province could do that, then the province and the proponent maybe together could then broach this with the federal government about their commitments. Everybody knows that everybody's money is contingent on somebody else's.

The thing they're finding when they talk to potential private supporters is that the private people, of course, are saying: "You've been at this for a number of years, and you haven't locked down the senior government dollars yet. Come and talk to us when you've got a more firm commitment on the senior government dollars, and then we'll talk."

Just in regard to the environmental issue, I believe that the corporation, PetroCan or whatever, continues to hold responsibility for environmental remediation on that. That's my belief, though I'm not 100-percent sure.

My question to the minister would be this. Is he, without committing to saying that he's writing a cheque tomorrow, willing to have his senior officials or to engage himself — whatever's appropriate — in actually having more of a sit-down with the proponent to talk about how to actually do this deal and to put the issues of small commercial on the table?

I don't know what has to be put on the table — I'm not a developer — but to actually start to try to get this thing done. I know they would like to have a commitment sometime in the next year with some dollars on the table or to know whether they're going anywhere.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the proponents of this project are served well by the advocacy of the member in bringing the matter to this committee.

The short answer is yes. It's an oft-forgotten fact that of the many, many aboriginal people that live in British Columbia, somewhere between 50 and 60 percent of them actually live off reserves, generally in urban centres. Of course, the largest component is in Greater Vancouver.

Providing the kind of support that is necessary and providing the kinds of outlets for youth that can assist, I think, is important. I think that pursuing the matter further is worthwhile. The one thing that was not available or at nearly the advanced stage that it is today, of course, is the new relationship trust, which may provide some modest means for support as well, although we have heard from others about the perception around tensions between on-reserve and off-reserve funding of projects.

That would be worth pursuing in the context of that discussion as well. I accept the member's observation that at some point a project of this sort acquires life and legs when someone says, "Here's what we're going to do," and everyone else jumps on board.

That requires a funding commitment. The member says that it need not be a lump sum but maybe could be specified sums over a period of time. I think that is worth exploring.

S. Simpson: I thank the minister for the commitment to continue or to re-engage this discussion in a way that will get us, hopefully, to a satisfactory conclusion for everybody and get a centre built. As the minister says….

I think I have the largest urban aboriginal population in the province in East Vancouver, with most of the native housing there. I certainly know that when I talk to leaders in that community, without exception they tell me that the biggest challenge is making sure there are opportunities for native young people in the urban setting — for them to have positive opportunities to move ahead on education and on employment opportunities and to make sure that they find the opportunities and the futures they're looking for.

My final question to the minister would be…. I appreciate the offer. Would it be acceptable to the minister? I'm happy to have more discussions with the people in the community, with Ms. Grey, who is the executive director of Urban Native Youth, and to put her in touch or make those connections with the minister's office or with the deputy's — whoever is appropriate.

If the minister could tell me who I should hook them up with on a substantive discussion, hopefully we can get something sorted out where everybody's happy with the results.

Hon. M. de Jong: I'll endeavour to provide the hon. member with the name of an individual in my office who could liaise with him for that purpose.

J. Horgan: It's a pleasure to engage with the minister today during the estimates process.

I'd like to take him back, if I could, to a longhouse ceremony he and I participated in with the Tsartlip people on the Saanich Peninsula last fall. He will recall that he, on behalf of the Crown, made commitments in front of the leadership council, the Tsartlip people, the Tseycum and other first nations from southern Vancouver Island to work to the best of his ability to resolve issues around not just the specific cave on Skirt Mountain, known as Bear Mountain in the development community, but also with respect to sacred sites in general.

Although I appreciate that I may well get the answer that other estimates would be a better place to canvass the archaeology branch and sacred sites, I'm confident that the new relationship would hinge on a coherent policy on that issue.

I'm wondering if the minister could enlighten us on what work he has undertaken to better clarify how we address, in the communities that we all live in, the issue of sacred sites versus archaeological sites.

Hon. M. de Jong: The good news is, again, thanks largely to the close working relationship that exists with the First Nations Leadership Council. The member is correct when he points out that representatives from the First Nations Leadership Council were at that remarkable longhouse discussion and ceremony. I think Grand Chief Stuart Phillip was there and regional Chief Shawn Atleo. I can't remember if there were….

In the aftermath and as a result of both the specific event — but, also, some additional input arising elsewhere — and other circumstances, a decision was made to strike a specific working group with the First Nations Leadership Council designed to examine the existing Heritage Conservation Act.

The member again correctly points to one of the specific issues, but a key issue, which is the limitations of an act that refers to heritage sites but does not seem in the same way to contemplate the existence of sacred sites. That, I can assure the member, is very much a part of the discussion that is taking place. It is, as I say, part of a discussion in a working group dedicated to examining one piece of legislation.

The daunting nature of the task relates both to the specifics here of a single piece of legislation but also to the realization that a lot of our legislation was drafted, voted upon and enacted at a time when the new relationship and all that that implies was not in place. There's a lot to be learned from the process we are undertaking now with respect to the Heritage Conservation Act, because there's a lot more work to be done in a variety of other sources.

The short answer to the member's question is that as a result of what took place around Bear Mountain and the discussions that flowed from that, the working group is up and running and carrying on its work.

J. Horgan: Could the minister advise the committee if there is any time frame with respect to the acts? If there was someone else in the chair, I may well have been chastised for talking about legislation or contemplated legislation.

The issue, as I know the minister recognizes, is a significant one. For those who are unaware — members here today — there is an enormous difference between what is characterized as an archaeological site by those in government who are charged with that responsibility and a sacred site, a site that's sacred to first nations and not necessarily categorized as a place where anything other than secret activity took place or activities known only to first nations.

It's a tough nut to crack, and I know that the minister and his staff and all those involved in these issues are not oblivious to that. But I do think that when we talk about the new relationship, we talk about the patience of our first nations citizens. Issues like this and the Bear Mountain example draw home for those in the non-native community the challenges that we face.

We had, in the case of Skirt Mountain, or Bear Mountain, participation by the Songhees, participation from Tsartlip. The T'sou-ke Nation was peripherally involved, as was Esquimalt, and on and on. All of those nations of south Vancouver Island had something to say about the issue.

A two-part question, because I know we're short for time: can the minister give me an indication of a time frame that the committee is working within with respect to sacred sites? Also, can we go back to the specifics of the arrangement that was reached at Bear Mountain with the developer, the city of Langford and the various first nations that were involved? Can the minister advise the committee on what the outcome was of that process?

Hon. M. de Jong: Let me try the first part of the question first, and perhaps I'll get some additional information for the second part.

The working group, as I indicated, is carrying out its deliberations. I don't know if the member canvassed this at any length with the Minister of Tourism. He's indicating he did not, so the prospect of me offering a dramatically different answer than he received from that source is apparently minimized. My hope is that we can have recommendations from the working group by the fall.

I think one of the things we are learning and trying to implement is that it is very important to first nations on a matter such as this to be involved in the development of some of these ideas. The days of, "Here is the bill; have a look; give us your comments," on something like this, I think, are past. We want to engage at a far earlier stage.

As well, there are obviously third-party interests beyond first nations that we will want to incorporate and have the benefit of in developing legislative options. I think it is clear that there need to be changes, and the member has pointed out one of the reasons that is so.

I will say this. I know he did not mean this as a criticism of officials, but I will offer this defence. They are charged with interpreting and applying the law as it is written. The limitations around the difference between an archaeological site and sacred site I suspect in most cases they would acknowledge, but they are left with an instrument that is now lacking in terms of the tools that are at their disposal.

The responsibility is ours as government and legislators to ensure that they have the tools which lend themselves more particularly and more effectively to

the task they have. That will give the member a rough sense of the kind of time line that we're on.

Then he had a second question about Bear Mountain. I'm just going to take a moment to bring myself up to date.

Insofar as the specifics, the member will recall that a specific working group was established around the issue, different than the one I referred to earlier. The province committed resources upwards of $90,000 to facilitate first nations participation in the working group. There has been an exchange of information, and there have been meetings scheduled.

I think I would take advantage of this opportunity to comment upon the engagement. Some of that has been assisted greatly by the resolution of another dispute which relates to the lands that these buildings are situated on. For obvious reasons, both the Esquimalt and the Songhees First Nations have been focused on the signing of that agreement and ultimate ratification. So the relationship, I have to say, has continued to evolve in a positive way.

The member is in touch with some of the leaders — Chief Robert Sam and Andy Thomas and others. I think we all learned a lot from the incident and the manner in which it occurred and also learned what we can accomplish when we sit down and work together.

I wouldn't want to end this discussion without also complimenting the input that we receive from the local governing officials — the mayor of Langford and others. Again, we see examples of how people are looking at these situations and saying: "How do we work together to make a win out of this?" This shows at the moment every potential for that occurring.

J. Horgan: The Bear Mountain issue is really a microcosm for the province. I suppose the advantage of being a member of the Legislature for a particular electoral area is you can take issues in your community and put the template of the provincial policy initiative over top of that and see if it's working.

In south Vancouver Island there are a myriad of different groups — Salish-speaking people, some Nuu-chah-nulth people in my constituency at the tip of Port Renfrew. All of them see the world quite differently. Certainly, the success of the Songhees and the Esquimalt people is not to be sneezed at.

I think these are historic steps in the right direction, but it does not include the Tsartlip. It did not include the Malahat. It did not include the T'sou-ke. I could inventory them. Staff have all of those bands that are not part of that process. So they understand there is a bit of inequity based on location, location, location of where the particular bands happened to be put by the federal government when they were put in places.

I'm not for a minute suggesting that this isn't complicated, and I'm not suggesting the minister needs to have an answer today. I just want to put on the record for those in my constituency that the challenges, particularly with development…. Members will know that the western portion of south Vancouver Island that I represent is where the overwhelming amount of growth has taken place — 20-percent growth in the communities that I represent.

As that growth takes place in locations like Bamberton, which is a sacred site…. The entire mountain is a sacred site to the Saanich people. That's a problem. It's a problem for the province, it's a problem for the regional district, it's a problem for the developer, and it's a problem for the Saanich people.

Again, I'm not suggesting for a minute that people aren't working as hard as they can to solve these issues, and I'm thankful that the minister put on the record that I was in no way besmirching staff's efforts. They have been given a blunt instrument that no longer works, and they have been tasked with administering that legislation in absence of something more modern and in tune with the challenges in the community.

But the issue around Bear Mountain was not really resolved to everyone's satisfaction. The cave is gone. The sacred site is destroyed. Development continues apace. Dollars were exchanged. Commitments were made. Discussion continues, and those first nations that were not located by the federal government at the right place for the interests of discussions that are taking place today are still on the outside looking in.

I want the minister to know that the Saanich bands in particular were a vital part of life in and around south Vancouver Island for hundreds and hundreds of years. Because they happen to live now in Brentwood Bay in no way diminishes their right and title to this territory.

Again, I'll have to deal with the various chiefs at Esquimalt and Songhees by making those statements, but nonetheless that's the reality that we face today. The minister knows that. He can't acknowledge that, perhaps, but he understands it.

I wanted to just conclude by saying there's urgency, certainly, with respect to the issues in south Vancouver Island. As the development community wants to proceed and create the communities of our future, the first nations want to be a part of that. The province has a vital role to play, and I'm concerned that the minister not leave today thinking that we had success at Bear Mountain.

We had a deferred decision at Bear Mountain, and the challenges still await us as the various committees that he has spoken about come to a conclusion on the issue of sacred sites and then, more importantly, on whether treaties signed in the 1850s are really, in my mind, valid today. I'm certain that we could have a long debate about that, and we don't have time in the committee to do that, but the people that I represent in my constituency, the first nations, don't necessarily feel that things are going along swimmingly.

I know the minister understands that. I wanted to make sure that he didn't leave from this discussion under the impression that we had had success at Bear Mountain. We had a resolution that allowed us to potentially have success in the future, and I'm hopeful that the minister will pursue that.

M. Sather: I wanted to ask the minister a question about the Tsawwassen First Nation and the tentative treaty that's been signed as it affects and pertains to the Katzie band in my community and the Pitt River. The Pitt River is the heart and soul, the middle of the Katzie First Nation territory, and the tentative agreement allows for hunting rights by the Tsawwassen along the Pitt River.

I'm wondering two things, actually. First of all, were the Katzie consulted about this overlap? Secondly, what sort of consideration was given to the effect that this might have on the wildlife populations in the area? Were there discussions with the Ministry of Environment about that, and what were the results of them?

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for joining the discussion and for the question. I'll endeavour to answer in the following way. Obviously, in the treaty process and the treaty discussion process, those nations that are part of it — and, actually, those first nations that are not — assert a traditional territory that falls far beyond what ultimately ends up as being treaty settlement lands for which the treaty enumerates self-government procedures and processes and the rights that exist.

There is also an area beyond that, which I think the member correctly referred to as wildlife management areas. The significant difference, when we are talking about something like a wildlife management area, is that we are not talking about exclusive rights, which is different in many ways from those rights that accrue to a first nation on their treaty settlement land. That is the first point. It is possible that in a particular area there may be a number of first nations with non-exclusive rights in a management area, which would entitle them to ongoing participation in some of the decisions that are made around wildlife management and things of that nature.

In addition to that, though, I can provide this assurance to the member. Even now discussions are taking place with first nations who have asserted traditional territory in areas covered by the Tsawwassen treaty, most notably wildlife management areas.

There are some first nations, actually located on Vancouver Island, with similar interests related to offshore marine and fishing interests. Those discussions are taking place, and we are hopeful that there will be a clear understanding on the part of those first nations about what is taking place.

The significant feature of the example the member has brought to the committee is that in the case of the Tsawwassen and those wildlife management areas, those are non-exclusive rights and, in exercising those rights, have to be weighed against things like conservation and the rights of other first nations. So that conversation is taking place now and, quite frankly, would likely continue in the aftermath of ratification of this treaty and subsequent treaties in the area.

G. Gentner: I rise to ask a few questions and to quickly put on the record that I'm not here to make any position on the TFN treaty agreement. I believe that the first nation there has to in all good conscience have the ability to make up its own mind on July 25. My position will not be solicited publicly until then.

I have to tell the minister that interestingly enough, last night I attended a meeting with Delta council. The Member of Parliament, John Cummins, was there, along with both federal and provincial chief negotiators. We had a round table and a very interesting discussion of what the next steps are. But there are still some misunderstandings, which may seem quite simple to the hon. minister.

I'm going to ask the questions, nevertheless, just for the record, so everybody understands. I want to first go with the ratification process. If the TFN do their thing, so to speak, and ratify their agreement, the next step is to come to the Legislature. Unlike TILMA, if I have this correct, this will come to the Legislature to be voted in the Legislature. It will not be strictly done by cabinet, but it will be ratified by all members of the Legislature. Is that not correct?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think if the member checks back, he'll find that his colleague the opposition critic and I covered this yesterday. The answer is yes, ratification would involve the treaty coming before the Legislative Assembly for a specific vote.

G. Gentner: I bring that to the minister's attention because it's something that was discussed early last night.

Quickly to the treaty agreement. Could the minister explain to me why his ministry and the BCTC didn't engage in a cash settlement with the TFN rather than doling out agricultural land?

Hon. M. de Jong: The final agreement of the sort that we are considering here is very much a product of a negotiation. I hope it doesn't surprise the member to know that in part, what has motivated the Tsawwassen First Nation — and I would not purport to speak on their behalf, because they have capable leadership in Chief Kim Baird and their council — is a desire to establish a community on a sufficient land base to engage in some of the economic opportunities that any community would want for its members and its families.

From that point of view, if one considers that we are talking about a very small reserve, which has very limited opportunities even for residential housing expansion, never mind the development of some economic opportunities for their people, I think it is easy to see why there was an interest to expand the land base of the community.

The asserted traditional territory, of course, is infinitely larger than what is contained in the treaty settlement lands. The negotiations were hampered by the fact that Crown land is in very short supply. But in part what has been at the forefront of what motivated the Tsawwassen First Nation and their leadership is the desire to have a community of a sufficient size with

sufficient opportunity to generate some sustainable economic opportunity and some economic development that would take that community into the future.

G. Gentner: I concur that there is capable and great leadership from Chief Kim Baird. There's no question there. What she has been able to do for her community is probably quite outstanding compared to the history of relationships with the province and first nations.

The minister talks about economic opportunities and the need for land base. My question therefore is: why wasn't the Deltaport included? There are great opportunities there. Why did the government of Canada and the province not consider that at the table?

Hon. M. de Jong: The negotiations took place over a very long period of time. Since we're having this discussion, I hope the member will take advantage of the opportunity this affords both of us in advance of what we hope will be a subsequent debate around treaty ratification. But we won't know that until later in the summer.

I can't deny that I have heard the member's comments, and it's an opportunity for me to at least assure myself that they are either being reported accurately or not. I saw a report from as recently as last night that the member believes the treaty is nothing more than a clever attempt to camouflage a desire to expand the port and remove land from the ALR.

If that's what he believes — I have seen reports, but I'm always careful about accepting those reports at face value — I hope he'll take advantage of the opportunity to stand here and say that that is what he believes, say it on the record and say that he believes there was some camouflaged desire here on someone's part to utilize this treaty negotiation for a purpose other than reconciling the claims of the Tsawwassen First Nation and establishing a treaty that would provide economic opportunities for that community going forward.

Now is the time to do it. If I am mistaken, if I have misinterpreted those comments or if they have been reported inaccurately, now is the time for the member to say so.

G. Gentner: I'll ask the question again. In the need for economic opportunities and the expansion of trade and the gateway, with all the opportunities afforded from probably the largest port on the west coast of Canada, if not eventually maybe of North America, why wasn't the port offered as a part of the settlement?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm actually going to be a little insistent for a change. I'd like to know, when I am confronted by comments directly on point, directly related to what we are speaking about here today and assigned to the hon. member, whether those comments are correct, because it goes to the heart of the line of questions that he is pursuing here today. I feel it would be unfair of me in the public domain here in this Legislature to persist in the belief that I presently have that the member has made those comments, if in fact that is not true.

G. Gentner: Obviously, the minister is unwilling to answer the question relative to the economic opportunities at Deltaport that could be afforded to the TFN. Obviously, it wasn't on the table, for whatever reason.

I will ask a question relative to…. Why, therefore, was Deltaport Way excluded within the settlement? I'm not talking about the port. I'm talking about the road.

Hon. M. de Jong: I want to make sure I heard what I just thought I heard. Is the member advocating in treaty settlements the inclusion and transfer, as part of treaty settlement lands, of public highways and thoroughfares? I'm just curious.

G. Gentner: I'll ask the minister again. Why wasn't the road and the right-of-way of Deltaport Way part of the settlement?

Hon. M. de Jong: If the member wants to be cute, then carry on. We'll have a delightful conversation and we can spend the next two hours doing that.

What is the member afraid of? He comes into the chamber; his first comment is: "I want to ask about a treaty, but I'm not going to reveal my position." I ask him to clarify comments that he has made. He refuses to do so. He's clearly under instructions not to talk about it.

S. Fraser: Point of order. This is conjecture. I don't believe it's appropriate. The questions are quite specific.

The minister rises and speaks to the member in what I believe was conjecture. He is making statements that are hearsay and there is no credible proof of what he's saying. He is avoiding the question, which was very specific, by the member.

I do not believe it's appropriate to engage that way. If he refuses to answer the question, I guess that's something he can say, but his conjecture is not warranted here.

The Chair: Member, that's not a point of order. We'll proceed with the debate.

Hon. M. de Jong: Fine. Well, let me try this. It's the policy of the government not, in the course of treaty settlements, to transfer into treaty settlement land areas public thoroughfares.

If the member has these questions, he can begin by analyzing some of the material that exists around the Nisga'a treaty.

But we're having the discussion about the treaty. I say again…. The member comes in here. He wants to have, apparently, a detailed discussion around mandates, around what went into negotiating the treaty, around various positions. But he camouflages, or attempts to, all of that commentary and says: "But I don't want to take a position on the treaty. I think that would be inappropriate."

Yet he's alleged to have made comments in the public domain that go to the very heart of the treaty, even questioning the motives of those who negotiated the treaty. I heard his colleague say yesterday how concerned he was about being disrespectful. His colleague and I had a difference of opinion about the wisdom of not taking a position. That's fair enough. That's a difference of opinion. We have had that discussion.

The member, Madam Chair, apparently had no such qualms. If I take the same standard that the official opposition critic purports to apply to this, that member has been singularly disrespectful of the Tsawwassen First Nation and of those people responsible for negotiating the terms of this treaty.

I don't begrudge anyone the right and the responsibility to stand up and speak when they disagree with something. Why won't this member do that? Why the camouflage? Why the hiding? Why the vague innuendo? If he disagrees with provisions of this, let him say so. If he believes, as he is reported to believe, that this whole treaty is about nothing more than expanding a port, then let him say that, or at least let him deny the myriad reports that have him saying it.

It's reported that he said it again last night. I don't want to assign words to the member that are not his. In this forum, in this discussion, at a time when we are discussing this treaty, his refusal to take ownership of or deny comments of the sort that have been reported and assigned to him leaves me with no alternative but to assume that those are comments he has made and that for some bizarre, inexplicable reason, he is unwilling, or incapable, to come into this chamber and defend those remarks.

G. Gentner: There will be a lot of time to defend the remarks I'm going to be making. There will be lots of time for me to defend those remarks, but out of respect for the Tsawwassen First Nation, they have a time of conscience to sit down and make up what they're going to do with the ratification on July 25. It's up to that nation to make that decision.

Now what we're hearing from the minister is so-called hiding and disrespect and maybe even a lack of transparency here.

A letter was sent from Her Worship Lois Jackson to the minister, dated February 12, 2007, on the so-called specified lands — Brunswick Point. In it the municipality was asked to provide to the negotiators a letter of their concerns. They did so, and by golly, it was a year later.

I quote Her Worship Lois Jackson after a year: "However, we received no further correspondence outlining how Delta's concerns would be addressed, and Canada, British Columbia and the TFN proceeded to initial the final agreement in December 2006."

Why was it that this ministry refused to at least recognize Delta's concerns and write back to Her Worship?

Hon. M. de Jong: Only because I suspect that I will refer to this in the future, and I want to provide for the member to correct any misinterpretation I may have. I thought I heard the member say, in response to my invitation to clarify remarks he is reported to have made in the past, that he will defend those remarks in due course or that he will have plenty of time to defend those remarks but that out of a sense of respect for the Tsawwassen First Nation, he would not be doing so now.

I must tell the member in this committee that I interpret those remarks as meaning he does not in any way deny the accuracy of the remarks that I referred to but that having said them elsewhere in the public domain, he feels, for the reasons he's expressed, that it would be inappropriate, and he is unwilling to engage in a discussion around those remarks here. If I am incorrect, I hope the member will disabuse me of that fact.

Insofar as the work that has been undertaken with both Delta and the GVRD, I am advised that there have been, since 2002, 42 meetings with the TAC, 14 meetings with Delta council and 13 meetings with the GVRD. I have met personally with Mayor Jackson, and there has been correspondence between the mayor and me, none of which, I should say, I expect has at the end of the day fully satisfied Mayor Jackson.

I will say this on Mayor Jackson's behalf. She is fully prepared to take a position and then to defend that position. I think that is an expectation we have of elected officials. It is apparently one that this member applies selectively. I can say that now — remarkably selectively. That may be convenient.

He may feel that it's better politics to go to a meeting somewhere and make comments, be critical and then choose not to pursue those in a forum that is designed to encourage that kind of discussion. So be it.

There has been an extensive amount of work undertaken with the TAC, the GVRD and the city — and, of course, a variety of opinions on Delta council about various components of the treaty. Again, I say that people have not been shy or hesitant about expressing those opinions, both pro and con, and I suppose it's unfortunate that the elected MLA for the region feels himself incapable or unwilling to afford his constituents a similar service.

G. Gentner: February 12, 2007. To the Hon. Michael de Jong from Her Worship Lois Jackson, mayor of Delta:

Why was there no correspondence outlining how Delta's concerns would be addressed?

G. Gentner: Is the minister suggesting that Delta received correspondence outlining how Delta's concerns would be addressed by Canada, British Columbia and the TFN so they could initial the final agreement?

G. Gentner: Again, on February 12, 2007, the mayor directly sent a letter to you stating that these were not addressed. So I ask you: was the mayor mistaken?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm sorry. The member really must be careful about the questions he poses.

His original question was: why didn't the minister respond to the correspondence? That is an incorrect statement. There was correspondence between Mayor Jackson and myself. There were meetings between Mayor Jackson and myself.

I don't understand the member's reluctance to get to the nub of the issue. We all know the mayor of Delta has issues about the treaty. Let's talk about them. Let's find out about those issues. Let's find out what the member thinks.

The member has had some very specific things to say about the ALR. Why not talk about that? This is an important instrument. This is potentially a historic agreement, a historic document. I have heard reports where the member says: "I don't think land should be taken out of the ALR." I might disagree with that for the purpose of this treaty.

The mayor of Delta has said that. She said it to me personally. I disagree with her. I have explained to her why in this case I believe it's appropriate. I have explained to her the mechanism that will be used. Isn't the member interested? He asked about the ratification legislation. Isn't he even interested in the manner in which that will happen? I've heard him express disappointment and opposition to that.

Let's talk about those items, or does the member believe he must hide behind the analysis of the mayor of Delta? Does he not have views on this of his own? If he wants to talk about the views of the mayor of Delta, as laid out in correspondence, let's do that, but let's stop playing games. This is an important instrument. This is an important treaty. This is an important agreement, and the member wants to play hide-and-seek.

I think it's the first case in the 14 years I've been here of a minister begging a member to have a discussion about an issue. The member doesn't want to engage. The member wants to hide. What's wrong with talking about something that the member purports to care so much about?

I actually think he does care. I think he has very pronounced views, but he won't tell us what they are. He won't even ask me questions that might ignite a discussion about different approaches to treaties.

You know, I sat in opposition one time. We talked about this a little while ago. I argued against the Nisga'a treaty. I laid my arguments on the table. They were open for people to accept or reject.

If the member has concerns, surely in a House where individual members are elected to bring their views, to bring their thoughts…. We talk about open votes. For heaven's sake, let's at least have an open debate. But I rather suspect that I have not been very convincing.

G. Gentner: Let's have an open debate, hon. Chair. The nub of the issue is transparency.

I did ask the mayor last night in an open forum about this letter, and she confirmed, along with her chief executive officer, that no, they had not received any correspondence regarding the concerns Delta had sent to the chief negotiator.

I want to ask the minister about another letter, sent March 13, 2007, to the mayor, regarding the process itself. I just want to get on record what the minister meant by…. He ends the letter with: "Our government continues to hold the view that this treaty will bring significant benefits, both to your community and the Tsawwassen First Nation." I want the minister to explain to me and the House: what significant benefits are there to the municipality of Delta?

Hon. M. de Jong: Before I take a moment, I just want to confirm. The member has just finished informing the committee that in his belief, there was no correspondence between my office, myself and the mayor of Delta, but he's now asking about a letter of March 13, 2007. I just want to make sure I'm correct.

G. Gentner: The mayor confirmed last night with the chief executive officer that the corporation had not received the correspondence from the process people outlining how Delta's concerns would be addressed. It was sent by Delta to Ms. Beedle, and there was no correspondence outlining how Delta's concerns would be addressed.

Delta had asked that those concerns be placed on the record and be addressed, but they never received anything. I asked the mayor last night. It's on camera, and we can certainly pursue that.

Going back, I still want to know from the minister exactly how Delta's going to benefit, according to his correspondence dated March 13, 2007, with the treaty. Just for the record, let's hear how the community of Delta will be best served.

Hon. M. de Jong: Just for the record, then. In spite of the member's earlier commentary around the lack of correspondence, we are talking about a letter dated March 13 that begins with the paragraph: "Thank you for your letter of February 12, with attached position paper dated June 29 concerning the specified lands approach and the Tsawwassen First Nation, along with a copy of your letter of June 27 to Chief Negotiator Bronwen Beedle and her July 5 response regarding this matter."

We are talking about the letter that, in the opening paragraph, chronicles the exchanges and the discussions and then goes on to talk about the meetings we had where we discussed specific claims. If I'm incorrect, maybe the member can let me know, because I do think it's important.

I want to emphasize to the committee my belief that a strong, developing economy on the part of the Tsawwassen First Nation — as a neighbour, as an adjoining community to Delta — has benefits for that community. I actually believe that a community in which people are prospering, paying taxes and in a position to purchase goods and services from businesses in their neighbouring jurisdiction is good news for Delta. I think it's good news for all of British Columbia.

There are benefits associated with a community being in a position to purchase and to enter into service agreements with neighbouring communities, whether it's the GVRD or the municipality of Delta.

I should say this. When I attended the meeting of the GVRD committee just several days ago and Chief Kim Baird spoke, she received a standing ovation from that group. Now, Mayor Jackson was there. I don't know if she stood, but everyone else in the room did. They believe there are benefits associated with this treaty for neighbouring communities like Delta.

The Tsawwassen First Nation will become a member of the GVRD, subject to the terms and conditions of membership. I think that's good. A settlement package that includes the injection of $70 million into the local economy is good news.

I don't know what the member thinks. I don't know if…. Well, I do know. He doesn't want anyone to know what he thinks, except on terms that are convenient to him and in a forum where, I'm sad to say, he is not subject to the same scrutiny that he would be subject to here.

He is apparently, sadly, more comfortable pursuing these matters elsewhere — and takes some delight in that — where the group that is advocating the treaty does not have an opportunity to address his concerns. It's fine that he has concerns. I think it is bordering on reprehensible that he would come to this committee and seek only to assign those concerns to others. It is bordering on shameful that an elected representative would endeavour to engage in a discussion of this sort but begin it with the proposition that he's not going to take a position and then use every means at his disposal to utilize the words of others to try and advance that position.

I'm not sure that I want to engage in a discussion with an hon. member who is so prepared to abdicate his responsibilities in the way that this member is prepared to. If it is a case of him being unwilling to act in defiance of instructions he has received or party positions, then so be it. His colleague at least had the honesty to explain what his approach to this would be.

G. Gentner: Point of order. Is the hon. minister suggesting that I'm not honest?

Hon. M. de Jong: I have done no such thing. I have commented favourably on the honesty of his colleagues. I would have thought that he would have preferred that.

G. Gentner: On July 25 the ratification vote will be held by the TFN. There is also going to be a vote on the constitution for the nation. Is that completed, so the members could understand where it is today?

In the spirit of transparency and understanding how the process is going to proceed, the question is…. My understanding is that it's twofold. We have a ballot that's going to be presented, quite simple and forthright for all members of the TFN to understand. But my understanding is that there's a constitution involved here that they will be voting on. Could the minister divulge to the House whether or not it is completed and when it will be ready for the members?

To my colleague to my right, the honourable, honest member from Port Alberni, I will obviously relinquish the chair.

The Chair: If I may, Members. We all regard one another, quite rightly, as honest members of this chamber, so I ask all members in this room to refrain. Let's keep this on an orderly basis.

S. Fraser: I'm not sure on what basis the minister is permitted under these circumstances to just not stand and respond. If it's based on his conjecture of beliefs of a member opposite, I don't know that that justifies such a refusal. I note that we had a Liberal member speak earlier. He's on record in this place, in Hansard last year, defending residential school policies of the past, which I think everyone agrees were reprehensible. However, I do not believe the minister ever held that against him as some sort of reason to not answer his questions, so I find that's quite selective and disappointing.

However, I wish to touch on something the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca raised as an issue — around cave protection and karst protection. The minister was referring to work that's being done there. I'm a caver, so I've raised this with the Minister of Environment already. There is some work being done.

I would note that the minister commented yesterday that some issues span different levels of government, and we have to try to bridge those gaps. I hope that will happen within the ministries, because it is a complex issue — karst and cave protection. The existing act — I believe it's the Heritage Conservation Act — does not address the caves themselves. It addresses archaeological items found potentially within the caves, but the caves themselves are omitted there. There's a gap — this spiritual sense of a cave.

There are other senses of a cave. Cave and karst protection is important all over the world. It is a unique biosphere, if you will, with unique animals and life forms, and it's a critical conduit for water.

All of these issues span this ministry, the Ministry of Environment and of course probably other ministries, too, dealing with culture and such. So I hope the minister is mindful of that — and his staff will be, I'm sure — in keeping the bigger picture here as far as dealing with those issues of the spiritual and of significance to aboriginal people. There are many issues in many ministries that could be involved there.

The minister referred back to Nisga'a time and back to another decade. Just a quote here:

This is from the Premier prior to him being Premier, from 1996. I agree with these statements. They're from another era.

Assuming that the minister — and I don't want to make that assumption lightly — agrees with these statements…. In the Audit of Treaty Negotiations in British Columbia: An Assessment of the Effectiveness of British Columbia's Management and Administration Processes, the Auditor General raised some concerns regarding the temporary agreements — the forest and range agreements, the forest and range opportunities.

Again, the statement from the Liberal Party in the '90s talks about positive and lasting agreements. Now arguably — and I'm saying "arguably" from my point of view but also from the Auditor General's — forest and range opportunities and agreements are not long range. They are finite.

Can the minister comment on how he reconciles the statements made originally about lasting agreements and the issues around the side agreements that are not long term and that don't seem to coincide with those statements?

Hon. M. de Jong: I can. Not to belabour the point, but the fact that the member comes to the committee and presents a concern and presents a substantive issue and says, "I have these concerns," and he draws on the Auditor General's report for that reason….

The Chair: Excuse me. Member, would you please restrain your remarks. The minister speaking has the floor.

Hon. M. de Jong: I know that the previous hon. member didn't want to get into a substantive discussion with me about anything, but his colleague does, and I'm happy to oblige. I actually think his colleague has asked an important question and, in the process, has been prepared to lay out some of the concerns that he has.

Coming back to the issue, I thought when the Auditor General addressed that point in the report that he correctly identified a lingering tension, and I think the member in his question has partly done so as well. We have historically, over the last 15 years, addressed this question of negotiations from the point of view of: "Let's try to secure a comprehensive land claims settlement or treaty and gear our efforts towards doing that." When I say "we," successive governments from the time the process began.

They're really complex. They're complicated. They're lengthy in terms of the amount of time — obviously longer than we hoped or thought — they would take to negotiate. But part of the incentive or part of the strategy, if you will, was to say to a negotiating partner and first nation: "Look, these are all things that you want to accomplish, you want to do and have contained within an agreement. We will realize on those objectives when we get to the final agreement and until then all these hopes and aspirations in their entirety are on hold."

We have started to do some things that are different from that — the forestry agreements, some of the other revenue sharing agreements. There are two things that I would say about that. One is the motivation there. We talked about this earlier. Treaties are a means to an end — to improve people's lives, to establish some certainty — but they are an important means to an end to that extent. But do we want people to put their lives on hold for years and years and years until we get there?

We've talked about the slow progress. We're talking about now six communities out of over 200 that are at a point where they're ratifying a treaty. Should we look at some ways to try and improve conditions on the ground, to create some opportunity, to create some economic development opportunities in advance of

that? That's what sort of gives rise to this notion of interim, incremental or other types of agreements.

Now, the Auditor General correctly pointed out that you've got to be careful. I'm not sure if the Auditor General used those words, but it's what I certainly interpreted in part the message to be. If those interim measures are of a sort that are — choose your words carefully — sufficiently lucrative or rich, the incentive to go the final step in a treaty might begin to disappear.

I'm not sure I heard this in his question, and he may agree or disagree. There's a tricky balancing act here because — I want the member to know this — I do believe that we should be prepared to examine measures, opportunities and take advantage of those opportunities even in advance of a final treaty settlement.

I'll give the member an example of one that I ran across. I won't mention the first nation, partly because I don't remember it. Even if I did, I'm not sure I'd mention it. In any event, it was a situation with reserve land here and reserve land here and some land in the middle. It was abundantly clear that at a final agreement that land was going to be part of treaty settlement land. In the meantime, no one else is going to use that land because it's so abundantly clear.

What if we the Crown were prepared — in advance of the final agreement, on a certain basis, on the recognition that it would form part of a final treaty — to transfer some of that Crown land? I think you've got to be prepared to consider that as a way of accelerating the economic development opportunities that may flow to some communities.

You have to be careful, and I think the message from the Auditor General's report is to enter that kind of a process with your eyes wide open because there are issues that can flow from that. That's the discussion. That's the debate. That's the balancing act that I think is part and parcel of what the Auditor General referred to in the report.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. I wasn't suggesting that opportunities stop in the treaty process and that we have to wait for a full treaty before we address some of the economic issues there. But the specifics of the FRA/FROs…. They were laid out by the Auditor General. I mean, the renting of certainty as opposed to the long-term certainty that, again, the Liberal Party took forward in the '90s. It's certainly a position that the Auditor General's reflecting on now.

I've got the report here, but I believe the Auditor General referred to these specific types of agreements, the FRAs/FROs, as a potential barrier to treaty and not a benefit in the treaty process — muddying the waters, so to speak, in the treaty process, making it less likely to achieve treaty.

I know some of the issues around the FRAs and the FROs have been brought up. The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and others have raised issues around how the FRAs were set up originally — the head count kind of formula. It was $200 or $500 per head; I don't remember now.

Have those issues been addressed? There have been big downsides to these issues amongst first nations, and the Auditor General also has issues with these. Were those ever addressed? Were there any changes to the formula for financial compensation in the FRAs and FROs to the first nations based on population?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think there were two components to the member's question. I'll deal with the first one first because we've been having the discussion around interim measures in the context of the treaty process, and that's fair. In the original task force report it was actually recommendation 16 that spoke to the possibility of interim measures.

The treaty process in its earliest manifestations contemplated interim measures of a sort. I do, though, accept the proposition that at a certain point one has to be aware of maintaining an incentive to take the final step to final agreement. In my view, the strategy, if one employs it, cannot lose sight of that overall objective.

There's a second component, though. In this next context they're not really interim measures. As the member knows, many first nations are not part of the treaty process. So how do we engage with them? How do we find a way to work in a partnership environment to help generate some economic opportunities? I think this strategy may have application there as well.

In both instances, let me say — and the member will have had an opportunity based on his duties as critic and, also, based on where he lives to make his own observations — that I think the overall relationship between first nations and government and other communities is assisted by our ability to engage with one another, to become involved in the economic life of the community.

Coming back to the treaties, where the Auditor General makes the point about the possible impediment, I think there is a flip-side argument. I would say that in some cases the trust that has developed and can develop around a more minor agreement, albeit an important one economically, can translate into a strengthened relationship that assists in the kind of very difficult conversations that take place at a comprehensive treaty negotiating table. That won't always be the case, I'm sure, but in some cases I think it will.

The forestry agreements — forest and range agreements back in the days when I was a minister and now forest opportunity agreements — are a good example of that. I think if the Forests Minister were here, and the member may have canvassed this with him…. I think there have been lots of positive things to emerge out of the forestry agreements. There are still some challenges. I think the Forests Minister would tell us that he would like to see far more of the fibre that is included in those agreements being harvested, because it is through that economic activity that opportunities arise. But I know that first nations welcome and welcomed the step forward on the revenue-sharing side.

I hope that we are in a position to perhaps expand that model. It's a difficult step. It has some significant financial ramifications. But it is a conversation that we

are having now with the First Nations Leadership Council, who are saying: "What are the other opportunities outside of treaties for revenue-sharing agreements?" I don't think we should be resistant to having the conversation. As the member points out, though, we should be vigilant about ensuring that we do not eliminate altogether the incentive and attractiveness and necessity for following this through to, ultimately, treaties and final agreements.

I don't know if in my rambling I've assisted the member with where my thoughts are on the issue, but it is an important issue. It goes to the heart in many ways of the strategy one employs in partnership with first nations in moving forward on the treaty front, the non-treaty front, and perhaps most importantly, the economic development front.

On the FRAs and FROs, there are issues there. I guess I don't really have time to get into them, but there is criticism, not just from first nations. The fibre movement that the minister was referring to…. Arguably, there have been independent sources that have stated how these things are set up. They're too small. There's no economy of scale. They can't actually get going. They're not an effective model anyways.

The Auditor General is taking a different criticism of it. Specifically, he's not referring to any good sides of this. He's saying that this is a potential barrier to treaty. If at the same time they're set up in a way that is not effective on the ground, say through the Ministry of Forests, because they're not effectively providing fibre…. They are too small. They do not provide enough of a scale to actually work on their own, independently. As a whole they might, but not as individual groups in a piecemeal way.

There are a lot of issues around these. It's clear that those criticisms, if that's the right word, from the Auditor General, or warnings about these things…. The minister is aware of them. The ministry is aware of them. But there doesn't seem to be any active move to change that.

There are other interim measures. I'm a fan of interim measures. The Clayoquot Sound interim measures agreement was first signed, it must be ten years ago now. That is a successful model where you're seeing first nations leadership and expertise and non–first nations leadership and expertise brought together in making management decisions on resource use. That's essentially called a bridge to treaty.

There are other examples out there. I would suggest that the Clayoquot Sound model, the interim measures agreement — and the Clayoquot Sound central region board, which was the follow-through of that interim measures agreement — has been a successful model. It has allowed communities there to work together, first nations and non. I suggest that such things may have been effective models that could have been used in other areas — maybe in Delta, maybe in areas where other treaties are being suggested now. A bridge to treaty there where openness between first nations governance and local non–first nations governance might be a benefit. I ask the minister to consider these things.

Further, though, with the Auditor General's report. If you're not really taking any action based on the recommendations or warnings about the FRAs and FROs…. The Auditor General went on to say in his report: "Incomplete information about the treaty negotiating program is a cause for concern." He's questioning openness and accountability here, and he's specifically citing incomplete information about the treaty negotiation program.

Can the minister, who's obviously seen this criticism from the Auditor General, comment on how he or the ministry has responded to correct that quite disturbing perspective from the Auditor General about incomplete information about the treaty negotiation program?

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for the report. I was rereading the section of the report to remind myself of some of the things the Auditor General said. He did make comments about the fact that…. I think the phrase was "relevant but incomplete information." That registers a concern with me because we want to ensure that the information is, obviously, relevant but also complete.

I think he did speak favourably about the reporting mechanism with the Legislative Assembly in terms of the service plan for the ministry and the annual report of the B.C. Treaty Commission process. I thought that underlying some of that commentary from the Auditor General was the view that, at a time when momentum around discussions and negotiations seemed to be accelerating, he saw some value in providing information more speedily as discussions took place.

We do try to post significant documents — things like agreements in principal and, obviously, final agreements — immediately they have been initialled and signed. We try to facilitate the flow of information to regional treaty advisory groups and other interested parties, but it is very much, I think, in our collective interest that people understand where we're at in terms of individual negotiations and tables, and that they have the most complete information possible.

So the lesson that I take from the report is that you can always do better. We take that seriously and to heart.

S. Fraser: I'm glad that the ministry is taking that to heart, but the report came out — I believe it was in April. We're towards the end of May. Have there been any changes anticipated to try to address these?

The minister referred to some good stuff in there. I think that's sort of symptomatic of what we're dealing with and what the Auditor General has been getting at. We're getting a lot of reporting out and communication on good-news stories as they arrive, and that's great. But there is this silence. The gap, the incomplete information is the challenge that I believe the Auditor General referred to.

There are significant challenges. I know the minister is aware of it, but we're still in…. There's litigation. The member for North Island referred to the Kwakiutl and the issues around TFL 6 in that case. We are seeing challenges on other treaties. We're seeing challenges that are coming potentially to fruition. We're seeing court challenges, potentially, around aquaculture tenures. There are a lot of problems out there that are not getting any communication and are not being reported out. That's where the incomplete information seems to be at this point.

Again, I understand the minister points to a good part of the Auditor General's report. But I am critical of the ministry addressing the critical issues that the Auditor General has brought out. You're going ahead with the FRA and FRO program. You're looking at maybe expanding it, despite what the Auditor General said, and I haven't seen anything that gives me comfort that you're addressing the incomplete information or the lack of reporting out or accountability or transparency that the Auditor General alludes to in his report.

Can the minister let us know what plans, if any, are afoot to address those, I think, critical problems?

Hon. M. de Jong: I've got two parts to my answer. I'll deal with the second part first.

As I said earlier, I do think it's important that people have as complete a set of information about this important subject matter as possible. The Auditor General said: "Look, it's not just about numbers." People want to know which tables are at what stage, how many AIPs there are, how many final agreements there are and how many are subject to ratification. But they probably want to know a little bit more than that.

So one of the things we have looked at is the possibility of augmenting the service plan with a separate status report relevant specifically to treaty negotiations. That would afford an opportunity to get beyond the sort of raw data that is…. I mean, the service plans are good, but they do in some ways tend to dwell on empirical data. So a separate status report or an expanded section of the service plan that deals specifically with status is a way of addressing that particular comment about the complete picture that people need to get.

Hon. Chair, I'll answer the second part, but I might indulge the member to check one component of the report.

I won't take long with this, but there was something nagging in the back of my mind as we were having the conversation around the interim measures. The member correctly points out one of the observations contained in the Auditor General's report about the potential for disincenting final agreements. My recollection was that his comments were less about "stop doing this" and more about "be aware of what the effects might be." I think that is borne out, in part, in the report where he wrote:

I think he fairly points out the pros and cons. I did not, in fairness to the member, interpret his remarks. I should say this candidly because it's our time to have the conversation. I did not interpret his comments as meaning "I recommend you stop this." I did, however, interpret his remarks as saying: "Be aware that there can be a pro and a con, and be careful about how you employ the tool."

The member may have read his remarks differently, and if the hon. member views them as being an admonishment from the Auditor General to stop the activity, we obviously haven't done that. We did — and do — take very seriously, though, his observation around the utilization of these types of measures and the possible impact they could have on the negotiating dynamic.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. There is good and bad with everything, and I'm not saying that the Auditor General said to get rid of FRAs or FROs. Being mindful that the minister was previously the Minister of Forests and Range, he knows that there is valid criticism that the FRAs and the FROs do not provide the level of activity and economic benefit that they were certainly designed to do — or the expectations have not been lived up to for most, if not all, first nations.

There is a problem in practicality about actually providing the economic benefits that these things were supposed to do or intended to do, and they may have been designed wrong, or whatever. I'm not the Minister of Forests, and it's not my line of expertise. I have read the reports and the criticisms of those. They come from a totally different source and different sector than the Auditor General's warnings about these maybe being a barrier to treaty.

If you are taking all these things together, I would hope that the minister is looking at this in conjunction with his colleagues in other ministries to make sure that they are not putting things out there that may be a barrier to treaty and actually, at the same time, may not be a very effective model for economic benefit for those first nations that desperately need that economic benefit.

I'm heartened to hear there is some discussion around improving the incomplete information, maybe the good-news pictures, all we're getting. I may be partly at fault here, but I don't believe the website is laid out in a way that the information is very easily accessible. I find that the information on what bands are at what stage is sort of spread throughout the report. It's hard to find.

While the final agreements and the agreements-in-principle are at least in a central location, I find that it's

hard to follow that. To indulge me, could the minister or his staff provide me with a list of which bands are in which stage at this current time? Again, it doesn't have to be this moment. It is confusing, and I've heard that criticism of the website, that the information is difficult to arrive at. Maybe this would be something that the minister could address and his staff could look at.

Hon. M. de Jong: Yes, we'll provide the member quickly with a listing outlining the stages.

On the website…. I marvel sometimes at the folks that design things like websites and how they're laid out. I have thought in the past that perhaps I should devote some attention to that personally and bring some of my skills and abilities with computer technology to bear. Like many things, we frequently run out of time. It's something that I may, at the prompting of the member, explore.

S. Fraser: I'm quite technically challenged. This thing keeps buzzing on my hip, and I still don't know what it's for.

Following the thread around openness and transparency, yesterday I touched on the issue of the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. I referred to my notice of motion, which the minister was aware of, to actually empower that committee to come forward. It is another venue for providing openness, transparency and information that can flow through both sides of this House — even some of the interchange that happened between the previous questioner, the member from Delta, and the minister that obviously led to some friction.

These issues are complex, and MLAs have issues and concerns that they have to represent on behalf of their constituents. This treaty process is being done in a way that is less than transparent, less than open. What's more, it's failing to use the basic mechanism that, in the '90s, the now Premier said as a promise would be used.

These committees are useful. Under Nisga'a we saw that was so, and the minister himself has referred to the committee system. He spoke of it, in a roundabout way, glowingly — that he was able to actually speak, in a way, knowledgably about all of the issues around the treaty process because the committee was kicked in at the agreement-in-principle stage. It allowed full interaction and involvement from both sides of the House and even allowed for, in the case of the Nisga'a, a minority report, which I think is a pretty refreshing and open thing to allow.

That has been sorely lacking, and I think we're seeing that playing out a little bit here. That would have been a venue for discussion and debate about many issues that are of concern, and they might have been mitigated or dealt with at that level in a knowledgable, open and frank way.

Certainly the estimates process, in my humble opinion, is not the place to engage in that debate. First of all, we do not have the time. Second of all, we don't all have the same background information that led us to this place.

I again ask, in the interest of openness and transparency, that the minister consider, when we see treaties moving forward — as was laid out in campaign promises back in the '90s from what was to be Liberal government now — an acknowledgment that that committee played a big role in the public process in this place for both sides of the House and also for non-aboriginal communities adjacent, with issues and concerns within the traditional territory that we're talking about.

I think that can go a long way towards building bridges, as do interim measures agreements like the Clayoquot Sound central region board and what came out of the interim measures agreements out of that process. I find that those are strong building blocks.

Coming out with agreements that no one has seen the process of breeds suspicion. Sometimes that's out of ignorance. If that's the case, we could have mitigated that early on. I think that's a shame.

I ask the minister — I know he has heard me say this, and I said it yesterday — to seriously consider using the resources that that committee could bring, because quite a few of us from both sides of the House would be able to be a resource, then, and be able to solicit information and distribute information back and forth to communities that might otherwise have problems with the treaty process, because it's not perceived as open. There's a ramble.

If it's all right, I'd like to sort of change gears. We're running out of time here. We're mindful that we're down to an hour.

Métis Nation B.C. We had Bruce Dumont in the visitors' gallery the other day. I certainly attended, as the minister has already, the AGM in Kelowna last year for the Métis Nation British Columbia.

The relationship accord is about a year old now. We had the birthday last week, on the 12th. There were a number of objectives outlined that have been referred to me and that I've discussed with them. It was a different sort of document, coming a little bit after the new relationship document.

I appreciate the fact that that document has come forward, and there were expectations that came with that. There are a number of issues, and you know the challenges that the Métis Nation have been dealing with, even as far as identification issues initially. I learned a lot about the complexity of that. The identification of Métis people across the province is a difficult and daunting and, to be done properly, expensive task.

Can the minister comment on where we've gone from the relationship accord a year ago to something tangible from government to assist the Métis Nation in their, I think, laudable cause?

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for taking the time to refer to this issue. He had become fairly well acquainted with the Métis Nation when I attended the AGM with him. He had been there earlier in the day. It was the first event I attended as the new minis-

ter. It was good to see him there, and it was quite an interesting evening with the various presentations. It's been an exciting learning opportunity for me, especially at a time when the accord, the MOU, has been signed and the work is undertaken.

I can provide this update to the member, starting, I suppose, with the issue of funding. There is core funding that's provided jointly by both the governments of Canada and British Columbia, and that amount is presently under review in consultation with President-Elect Dumont and the cabinet executive council. I should take a moment to echo what I think were the member's words about the good work undertaken by President-Elect Dumont and the executive director, Keith Henry.

They have indicated that in sort of the broad spectrum of sectoral areas that are referred to in the protocol agreement — things like education, housing, health care and governance — it is on the latter, on governance, that they and we wish to be and have been primarily engaged. That's the priority item for them, so much of the work has been focused on the governance issue.

I'm glad that the member pointed out and drew specific attention to the issue of citizenship registry. It is, I think without a question, very, very important — perhaps most important at this stage — for the Métis Nation British Columbia to know who they are and who comprises the Métis Nation British Columbia. It's probably also the toughest, because applying the tests that are there and tracing back the ancestry is not, I suppose, difficult.

It's remarkable, isn't it? People are very excited about tracing back their ancestry, and I think, at least, that it's taken on a whole new air. People step forward and with pride in their voice say: "I am partly aboriginal, partly first nation, partly Métis." I think it's tougher when you're the agency or the official who, applying the tests, is obliged to say to someone: "No, you're not." That's part of the challenge that the Métis Nation British Columbia has been confronted with.

I should also relate to the member that I had an opportunity two or three weeks ago to attend the University of Alberta in Edmonton with President-Elect Dumont. A project was undertaken relating to the establishment of a very user-friendly archival database, which literally allows individuals to trace back their genealogy and ancestry to Métis communities. It will also be of significant utility to the Métis Nation B.C. and other provincial Métis organizations as they carry on their work with relation to identifying membership citizenry within the various Métis nations — great work taking place.

I think the AGM is slated again for September in Kelowna, and I'm hopeful that both the member and I will have an opportunity to be in attendance and receive the benefit of the incredible hospitality of the Métis Nation B.C.

S. Fraser: I must say, going to that AGM was…. These are a people that have a zest for life. The percentage of youth, young people in that room and the pride that was shown there I found very refreshing. I didn't want to leave.

Getting back to brass tacks here, the only thing tangible the minister said there was that the money was sort of under review. Well, this is budget time. This is a year old. We know that there are data collection issues — the registry being a main issue, governance being an issue. The minister rightly pointed to housing, education, health and a number of things that are clearly laid out in the accord of a year ago that need resources to take them to the next step.

Have we got anything budgeted in this? We've got a budget, and it's a big increase in a budget. Are we going to see something tangible here?

Hon. M. de Jong: I know that President Dumont will appreciate the advocacy that the member brings. The short answer is yes, we are right now in the midst of discussions with Métis Nation. They are going through their budgeting process, and we are engaged with them. I won't — I'm not able, nor will I — lay out here, partly because I can't, where I think that discussion will end up. I hope the member will derive some comfort from the fact that I can assure him we are fully engaged with President Dumont, Keith Henry and others around the very topic that he has raised here.

S. Fraser: Obviously, we've had a lot of discussion amongst a number of members and the minister through this process around the new relationship trust, the $100 million. The Métis Nation accord came with no such sort of parallel agreement, no means for capacity resource.

Is that something that has been contemplated? Here we have a parallel process, very similar in a lot of ways. We've got the first nations new relationship; we have the Métis Nation accord; we have $100 million set aside; and we have discussions with the Métis Nation, which I applaud. Have there been any thoughts about, in the interest of autonomy for the Métis Nation, achieving some of their needs and goals that are obviously agreed upon through the accord? Has there been any consideration of that, of some sort of parallel process like the first nations trust?

Hon. M. de Jong: Just so that I provide an answer that is meaningful to the member, is the member asking whether or not there is a relationship document of the sort captured by the new relationship, or is it a more specific question relating to the establishment of a separate fund à la the new relationship trust? The beginning of the question suggested the former and the end of the question the latter.

I have to tell the member that to this point the conversations and discussions that have taken place — and at a tripartite level also involving the federal

government — have generally occurred on a sectoral basis. I talked about health, education and housing, for example.

It would be, I think, improper of me to suggest at this stage that there has been much meaningful conversation around the establishment of a fund on the magnitude or even a fraction of the magnitude of the new relationship trust. The work thus far has tended to take place on a more sectoral basis. Whether or not that evolves into the kind of discussion and, ultimately, a capacity-building fund of the sort that the member is referring to remains to be seen. I don't want to in any way mislead the member. I don't think we're there yet.

S. Fraser: I thank the minister for his candour there. I appreciate the challenges.

I note that this is the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. As we all know, the constitution, certainly, has a recognition of Métis people. I think the minister is mindful of that. That recognition, arguably, should and could lead to discussions around capacity and a way of dealing with that, whether it's a trust model like the first nations trust or not.

I am happy to hear that there are discussions happening around dealing with some of those issues, because it is certainly part of the mandate of this ministry, as opposed to first nations issues. They are very real too, but the aboriginal issue in general isn't always covered by some of the initiatives taken forward for first nations.

That's a good segue into my next section here. There are a lot of needs for off-reserve aboriginal people in this province, as the minister knows. Certainly, the urban issues are probably more of a stark reminder in a lot of ways — some of the disparity issues with aboriginal people in urban centres.

Can I ask the minister: where does he get representation for those issues? Where does that come from?

Hon. M. de Jong: He's right. As we discussed with his colleague from Hastings, it's easy to forget that of the aboriginal peoples in British Columbia, somewhere between 50 percent and 60 percent do not live on reserve but live off reserve — generally in urban settings. That emphasizes the importance of the urban first nations memorandum of understanding — MOU — that was signed between the United Native Nations, B.C. and Canada. The UNN, of course, continues to play a very significant role in terms of representing the interests of first nations.

I have to say, although I've only been in this role three-quarters of a year, that there is an ebb and flow to these things. But on balance, I have seen greater cooperation and less — slightly less — tension between the agencies representing urban-based aboriginal peoples and some of the band-level organizations, although I think that's a tension that will always exist. I think it relates in part to where resources flow and who has management of those resources from the various levels of government.

The province contributes and works with friendship centres that are located in urban centres. A number of other organizations…. I was in Vancouver a month or two ago. The agency there working with aboriginal women is doing tremendous work. So we try to provide that kind of support and liaise with those urban-based organizations. Obviously there are significant challenges that were faced there.

We will probably get into more detail on some of the projects and initiatives that have been launched. But broadly speaking, that speaks to the main organizations and the MOU that has guided discussions and interaction of late.

S. Fraser: Is there an ongoing consultation process happening on urban aboriginal issues, and if so, who is that with? The minister mentioned UNN. Fair enough. He mentioned friendship centres. Is there a formal consultation process, or are there other groups, too, that are involved in that?

Hon. M. de Jong: Through the Urban Aboriginal Strategy, developed in concert with urban-based aboriginal representatives, the federal government and the province, we engage on a regular basis. A good example of that would have been, actually, what we saw happen yesterday with the aboriginal youth internship program and that collection of, in this case, youth organizations, many of them urban-based.

That same engagement is what allows us to pursue in a meaningful way things like the first nations health plan, the first nations housing strategy, children and family services, devolutions. The member knows there are, in each of those areas, some tremendous successes, and then there are some areas where some challenges still remain.

We are fortunate in that there is a great willingness, a strengthening relationship and, dare I say, a strengthening sense of trust, although it takes time to build that. You don't have to go far in places like Vancouver or Prince George to know that there is still a lot of work to be done in terms of addressing the specific needs of urban-based aboriginal peoples. But we have to work cooperatively in partnership.

We have to identify who the leaders are that we can work with, as opposed to impose solutions on, and — as we talked about yesterday and at other times — develop those leaders who can come forward, who have the tools, who have the capacity, who have the education to assume leadership positions and work with members of B.C.'s urban aboriginal peoples to address some of those challenges.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that, although I must say I'm a little frustrated. I'm not getting very tangible answers here, and maybe that's indicative of a problem that's not just a ministerial problem but a problem we have. There seems to be a gap in dealing with urban aboriginal issues, and I know that might be a capacity issue in and out of the ministry. I know their resources are limited.

The minister rightly referred to the recent — whatever day this week, I can't remember either — announcement of the aboriginal youth internship program. I was glad to see that, of course, but there was silence on aboriginal internships in the last throne speech. I believe it was mentioned in the throne speech before that. So it has been awhile.

We've waited awhile for any kind of movement on aboriginal internship since the original, two throne speeches ago. My memory could be fading here, but I'm pretty sure there was no mention in the last throne speech, and it was the previous throne speech. So it's been a long time coming.

That being said, I thank government for coming forward with that. The minister rightly pointed out that over half of aboriginal people in B.C. live off reserve. There are 24 friendship centres in B.C., I believe. The minister mentioned those.

Here we have an organization that is up and running and spread in key areas throughout the province. They have a networking that is, I think, very effective. They service to a large extent the aboriginal communities and persons living off reserve. They serve a very big role in providing for youth and youth programs.

There is serious underfunding, and even the success of these programs is at risk because of that. The programs in friendship centres do meet real needs from real youth in our communities across the province — and not just aboriginal either, as the minister probably knows. They don't shut the doors on anyone.

Specific question: will the government of B.C. provide support for these programs at the friendship centres so there is continual programming for youth and the programs that address the real needs of these youth?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the member may be aware that the vehicle by which funding has been provided to friendship centres from the province…. The bulk of their funding has come pursuant to constitutional obligations from the federal government, but the vehicle by which the province has funded friendship centres is the first citizens fund, which I think was established in the late 1960s.

The good news is that several years ago this government chose to essentially double the size of the fund with a contribution of $36 million. It was at $36 million, and the province doubled the size with, I think, the single biggest contribution in the history of the fund. It took the fund to $72 million, and those funds are available.

Again, I don't want to leave a wrong impression here. Of the roughly $4 million that that fund generates — just over $4 million in interest, in funds available on a year in, year out basis — somewhere in the neighbourhood of 20 percent is provided to friendship centres. I'm advised it's generally to provide for a program director, so funding above and beyond that comes from Ottawa.

But as I say, there's a significant increase to the first citizens fund, which has enhanced their ability to provide additional funding — double the funding — to organizations like the friendship centres, which I agree provide an extremely valuable service in urban centres.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. I'm aware of the numbers and the fund and the increases, but I'm also aware of the shortcomings. I mean, the federal funding…. The province is the beneficiary of these centres. In this case there are 24 centres in B.C. The minister alluded already to the difficulty in even addressing urban aboriginal issues that are important and, I think, are a gap, arguably, in this ministry's mandate.

Hon. M. de Jong: I don't have the accumulated federal amount available, so for that reason I'm reluctant to make that sort of commitment. I'm probably reluctant, as well, because I'm subject to certain budgetary limitations. But I have the member's point about the importance of the work that is undertaken.

I should say this, and I know the member would represent a significant ally in this. I do think it is important in all that we are doing here in British Columbia…. We talked earlier today, at least I did, about the pride that I heard expressed by members of the leadership council as they go to meet with their colleagues in places like Quebec and the Maritimes, where they are told: "We want to see the same things happening here that are happening in British Columbia."

The accelerated progress that we are making, the new relationship — in many ways, that has become possible because the government, the Premier, has said: "We're not going to wait. We want to get on with this. We want to get on with forging this new relationship."

But we do need the federal government to be there as well. The federal government still has a significant role to play. They have a fiduciary obligation. They have a constitutional responsibility for aboriginal peoples in British Columbia. I know the member would take advantage of whatever opportunity presents itself to remind federal leaders of that fact. We certainly do.

We're also obviously intent on working with first nations themselves to ensure that they ultimately have the tools, the means and the capacity to provide services to members of those first nations, whether they live on reserve or off reserve, and to do it in a way that makes sense.

We had some discussions with a first nation a few weeks ago who said: "Now, look. We want to be smarter about how we tap into existing services so that we're not duplicating things." So we want to help develop that capacity through things like treaties and other agreements. I have heard the member say loudly and clearly that he believes this is a priority and is hopeful of funding increases that will reflect that.

In acknowledging that, I've also responded and said that I want British Columbia to speak as best we can with a unified voice when we say to the federal government, whoever that federal government might be at any given time: "Look, notwithstanding what's happening here in B.C., notwithstanding the progress

we're making, there is still an important role for the federal government to play."

S. Fraser: We can speak as one from both sides of the House on that, pushing the feds and that. There are gaps. The urban multipurpose youth programs that are so vital to the operations of the friendship centres…. There is a physical gap, in my understanding. I've visited enough of these centres. It seems to be a systemic problem. The funding stops. It's like two months of gap in funding from the federal process there for those.

The minister referred to hiring staff. Well, you try to keep consistent staff that have to develop trust from urban youth, aboriginal youth and others, and you've got these shortfalls. It's associated with year-end fiscal. I'm sure your staff are aware of it. There's a two-month period where they have no funds, and they have to start all over again. It's a waste of money, it's a waste of resources, and it's not effective.

Federal responsibility, constitutional responsibility — certainly. But social justice responsibility, urban realities are provincial issues, too, and the minister alluded to this yesterday. We have to get beyond compartmentalizing who is responsible for what.

If the province isn't stepping up to the plate in dealing with the urban realities, the off-reserve realities for aboriginal peoples in B.C.…. You have to. You'll get nothing but support from the official opposition on that. If we have to bug the feds about it, so be it. But the province has a role here too.

It's cost-effective. There's a good business case to be made. And the good work that's done in friendship centres, especially for our youth, I think is critical.

Will the minister consider examining this year-end fiscal vacuum that happens with the federal funding and maybe try to address that gap? That would be very cost-effective, I think.

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm always interested in examining circumstances in which we can provide for greater continuity and greater certainty of the services that are actually having a positive impact on people's lives. I think about the work that is being undertaken with respect to aboriginal youth, both on and off reserve, and the establishment of a council as an agency through which we can work.

I have the member's point. I hope he can take some comfort from the fact that we always stand ready to examine ways in which we can address — be it as an individual level of government or in concert with the federal government and our partners in first nations communities — and improve the continuity and certainty around the services that people are relying upon and develop with them, in the process, the capacity that is needed to assume even greater ownership of the delivery of those services.

S. Fraser: I liked all of that, except "and the money necessary." I asked specifically for the minister to consider matching federal funds, and I understand there are fiscal realities and budgetary constraints. However, the specifics…. The second question was the gaps.

The specific program is called the urban multipurpose aboriginal youth centre program. Basically, they're run out of, to my knowledge, all of the friendship centres that I've visited across the province. During the crossover of each fiscal year, the funding from the federal government is interrupted for several months, and these critical supports and services for youth are then unavailable. Seriously. You can't keep staff.

If you have a high turnover of staff in these programs, you lose the youth. You lose the trust of the youth that is built up by very good work from very skilled workers that are required to make the investment in our future, in the youth. There are cost savings. There is a business case to be made here.

So if federal funds are lacking for two or three months, that would be a cost-effective thing for the province to consider doing. Or, at the very least, if there is nothing in the budget that the minister is willing to consider putting forward, take that issue specifically forward to the federal minister, Minister Prentice. Correct that gap, because it's a stupid, uncalled for and poorly organized part of the system for providing for youth that need these services more.

Will the minister commit today on record to giving this a serious look or directing staff to seeing if there is a way of mitigating this so that the youth do not lose those services or are not interrupted to the extent that they lose the services?

Hon. M. de Jong: I sadly cannot undertake, at this point, to provide the gap funding in the manner that the member has advocated. I can, however, assure the member that he has effectively identified for me the issue and the way it plays out.

I do know that there are various other ministries and departments of government who do provide program funding. Generally, that is not something that this ministry does. But I can certainly assure the member as well that on the strength of this exchange that we have had here that I will (a) examine the matter further and (b) alert, however, my counterpart at the federal level to the difficulties that the member has related to me today.

S. Fraser: Noting the time, I thank the minister for that. It will be a good investment in time to do that. I appreciate that. You've got the full support of this side of the House, if that's appropriate — if that's necessary.

I'm going to move very quickly on to a couple of a little more specific issues again. I'm running out of time for the 10,000-foot level. On an issue that I touched on yesterday when Chief Atleo was here from the Ahousaht First Nation, I neglected to touch on one.

I think I touched on the issue around the transportation corridor — the ferrying traffic back and forth to Ahousat from Tofino — but I know Chief Atleo has been trying to stickhandle and negotiate with several ministries that are potentially responsible around how

to deal with that ferry issue back and forth to Ahousat. I sensed some frustration from Chief Atleo in trying to coordinate the multiministry aspect.

Ferry issues. There's a Ministry of Transportation issue. There is an issue around tourism — so another ministry. These are ministries that Chief Atleo is trying to deal with. Then, of course, there's the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, which is why I'm bringing it forward here.

I would hope that the ministry can see, as part of the mandate as the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, helping first nations leaders stickhandle their way through the intricacies of a multiministry problem or challenge. We all have our own challenges with bureaucracies — no disrespect to bureaucrats everywhere. Especially if you're working at this from afar, it can become very frustrating.

Will the minister consider helping Keith Atleo try to find a way to address that transportation issue with the appropriate ministries?

Hon. M. de Jong: Yes. Actually, I see that as an incredibly important, growing and significant area of responsibility for the ministry — more importantly, the ministry — and certainly at the political level, for whoever happens to be the minister at any point in time.

The member is right about the challenges associated with coordinating a big government around addressing the specifics of an issue. How do you get the right people in the room, and how do you bring the sometimes political focus that is necessary? In the time that I have been minister, particularly over the last six months, I find that a great deal of my time….

Sometimes the most satisfying part of the job is actually being able to do that — to say to a group: "Okay, we're going to sit down, we're going to have someone from Transportation, someone from Agriculture and Lands and someone from the Mines Ministry, and we're going to find out what needs to be done." Individually, everyone says it's a great idea, but somewhere between, "It's a great idea," and "How do we make it happen?" it's not happening.

That, I can assure the member, is a function and area of responsibility that I very much agree with him falls to this department of government. I am happy to endeavour to discharge that duty as it relates to Chief Atleo and the issue that the member has referred to.

Actually, that role of trying to broker a resolution to problems through government from first nations — I agree with that. I think that's a good way to go. It's very necessary. It is a gap, and it would be good if the ministry took that on as a key mandate, I think. Again, I think that would be very useful in the interests of reconciliation and relation.

With that in mind, here we go. Kakawis Family Development Centre on Meares Island is in Clayoquot Sound. This is an alcohol and drug treatment centre, and it's been around for a long time. It was originally funded by the province, I think, starting in 1973, or '74 probably. They were incorporated in 1978.

During the time of their operation, they've operated on Meares Island at the site of the old Christie Indian Residential School. They are looking to move now, and their centre is looking to expand into Port Alberni. It's quite remote where it is now, and it's just not serving the purpose.

There have been a lot of studies done. The Vancouver Island Health Authority has looked at this, and in 2003 VIHA did an extensive review. One of their major recommendations, which was approved, was to work with Kakawis to develop a plan and a realistic framework for relocation.

They've done that. They have acquired a site, they've done work with this, and they've got the support of Chief Sayers. I think it's in Hupacasath traditional territory outside of Port Alberni.

S. Fraser: I am looking like a developer. I'm going to register as a lobbyist. I haven't done it yet, but I can do it, I think, after the fact.

They've acquired the old Beaver Creek elementary school and 9½ acres, and they have purchased this for $225,000. The trick now is that they are dealing with the Minister of Health. They are dealing with housing issues. This institution is one of four treatment centres in Canada, and they've been operational the longest.

In keeping with a first nations traditional approach in healing, it has a very holistic approach. They've been most effective in addressing the devastating effects of basically colonialized residential school issues, of first nations breaking through legacies of dependency, addictions and the loss of parenting skills.

It's as much a part of the role for this ministry as it is for the other ministries that are there. I would ask that if the minister, when considering…. I could provide this for staff if they could help in sort of stickhandling this to the next step where they need to go. There's been a lot of work done in kind. A lot of the work has already been done. It's very much supported, and it's very much first nations–oriented, although not exclusively.

Would that be something that the minister might be able to help the proponents of this, who are many, get through?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm anxious to receive the material and to have an opportunity to review it along with staff.

S. Fraser: Thank you very much to the minister. I will contact the executive director and make sure that your staff are given any further information. They have made some progress and some communication with various ministries, but I think they're going to need help here because it does span too many. It falls back onto the Aboriginal Relations portfolio more than any other ministry, I believe. That would be great.

I'm going through the list here. I raised the issue in estimates already in dealing with the Tseycum First Nation with Tourism, Sport…

The minister responsible said on May 10 in estimates that he's working with the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation to do something. This is Tseycum First Nation, and it's around construction. It's dealing in this case with archaeological monitoring. There are burial sites being dug up, Tseycum First Nation burial sites. They've been working cooperatively, and so has the district of North Saanich, with the Tseycum First Nation to try to deal with this.

I have another quite extensive package here, and I do not know if the ministry has this or not. It goes through all of the…. As the excavations are happening — they're mostly sewer lines and that — they're running into actual burial sites. Despite the fact that they've got cooperation from the local municipalities, the resources necessary to address some of the archaeological, spiritual and cultural issues and to assess them are daunting.

Again, there's a bit of a brick wall being run into because it's not the responsibility particularly for, say, North Saanich. They don't have the resources to provide this level of expertise. I don't believe, certainly, it's the role of the Tseycum First Nation to have to deal with that. They do not have the resources either.

It involves both, and there must be a role for the province. The minister that I spoke to earlier said that he was working with your ministry to try to address some of the issues around encountering these archaeological sites during routine construction work throughout the municipality and potentially with others.

Is the minister aware of this? The other minister said that he's working with you. Where are we at with that?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the member was here. Well, he's been here throughout the estimates. We had the earlier conversation with one of his colleagues about the workings of the Heritage Conservation Act. That work, obviously, is engaging the attention of both ministries in its application.

I wonder if the member could tell me just a little bit more about whether or not the difficulties that he has been made aware of are relating to the application of the legislation — and there may be some of that — or are more practical and related to what actually happens in a situation where a crew installing or repairing a sewage line runs across remains or a burial site. If I could just hear a little bit more about that….

S. Fraser: Certainly. I wasn't very clear. I was referring to the original document I put…. It was I.R. Wilson Consultants Ltd. They've done a lot of work around, I guess, assessing the remains, so that work's been done. The Tseycum First Nation are really looking for government assistance in managing first nations archaeological sites in a respectful manner. They're asking the government to allocate funding to assist the North Saanich municipality for the extended work that was completed and to help handling these archaeological sites.

That, obviously, would have been something that the Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts would be more involved with. Again, as we've touched on, it does span potentially more than one ministry. I think the minister suggested that there may be some work coming to completion on at least looking at a plan for this, but it was in around 2009.

In the meantime we are seeing these sites being dug up in a way that is interpreted as very disrespectful. These are ancestral remains, so with all due respect to the first nations…. You know, the ministry is named Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. Reconciliation is about the past. These are burial sites in traditional territories that are not….

No one is arguing with that. The sites are there, so we know that the traditional use is there. Is there any way that the ministry might be able to assist in this endeavour for the Tseycum First Nation?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think it might be very appropriate to incorporate some of the matters at play here into the working group that is addressing the question specifically.

The only question the deputy minister has prompted me to ask is: is the member aware of whether the first nation has registered a specific claim with the government of Canada around the area involved? He may not be aware, but I'm trying to recall. If he has any information, he can provide it now, or we'll find out later.

S. Fraser: I do recall seeing some correspondence, which was cc'd, I believe, to federal authorities. I just don't recall with that level of detail, so I'd appreciate that.

S. Fraser: I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation 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.