Hansard — Thursday, November 1, 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		9007

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		9008
	4-H Club
	V. Roddick
	Port of Prince Rupert
	G. Coons
	Settlement workers in schools
	J. Nuraney
	Tidemark Theatre
	C. Trevena
	Whistler Blackcomb gondola construction project
	J. McIntyre
	Search and rescue workers
	N. Macdonald

Oral Questions		9010
	Pope and Talbot bankruptcy proceedings
	B. Simpson
	Hon. C. Hansen
	Hon. S. Bond
	K. Conroy
	L. Krog
	R. Austin
	Terrace community forestry plan
	R. Austin
	Hon. C. Hansen
	Tree farm licence land removals
	J. Horgan
	Hon. C. Hansen
	Ministry of Children and Family Development renovation costs
	A. Dix
	Hon. T. Christensen
	Funding for Mary Manning Centre
	R. Fleming
	Hon. T. Christensen
	Ministry of Children and Family Development renovation costs
	M. Farnworth
	Hon. T. Christensen

Petitions		9014
	L. Krog
	N. Macdonald
	J. Horgan
	S. Simpson
	G. Coons

Committee of the Whole House		9014
	Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement Act (Bill 40) (continued)
	M. Sather
	Hon. M. de Jong
	G. Gentner
	S. Fraser
	S. Simpson
	C. Wyse
	B. Lekstrom
	D. MacKay

Hon. P. Bell: November is 4-H Month in British Columbia. Well, 4-H is a tremendous organization that teaches kids all about leadership, agriculture — everything that's really good about country life. We've got a very active program right here in Victoria and throughout British Columbia — in fact, an increasing membership which is bucking the trends nationally.

Mr. Speaker, 4-H stands for "Head, heart, hands and health," and it's the motto of the organization and club. They have a wonderful arm band that's available. I'm not allowed to wear it in the Legislature, and I'm actually not allowed to show it either. So I won't do that today, Mr. Speaker. I won't hold it up at all, in fact.

Many of my colleagues are wearing green today, as green is the 4-H colour. I'd ask all colleagues to welcome a group of young 4-H'ers and leaders, as well, to the precincts today. We're joined by Susy Chung-Smith, Bill Erving, Amy Erving, Nigel Erving, Rachel Goddard, Angela Goddard, Bert Smith, Julie Domvile and Clara Buchanan. Would the House please join me in making them feel very, very welcome.

N. Macdonald: I would like to introduce Joy Orr, my constituency assistant, who is here for a second time. That's the first time I've had somebody come and watch and come back the next day. I'd just like you to join me in making her feel welcome.

Hon. I. Chong: Today in the gallery I have the honour to acknowledge a special delegation of visitors from China who are participating in the Canada-China legislative cooperation project. We're pleased that this delegation included British Columbia as part of their study tour on the budget process and parliamentary oversight.

Earlier today they had a briefing by the Legislative Assembly on budget and estimates examination and approval, and I know that the MLA for Surrey-Whalley and the MLA for Burnaby North were there to assist. Later this afternoon I understand that they'll be looking to find out how public accounts work. I understand that the MLAs for Victoria-Hillside, Richmond-Steveston and West Vancouver–Garibaldi will be assisting in that. So I know they have a very full agenda.

We appreciate them being here. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, and the House to please join me in welcoming Dr. Feng, the director general of the Budget Affairs Commission of the National People's Congress of China, who is leading this delegation.

S. Fraser: I know they're all great, and I'll be accused of bias, but I'd like to introduce the best constituency assistant in the province. Please join me in welcoming Brenda McLean.

L. Krog: Joining my colleagues, I'm delighted to ask the House to welcome here today my constituency assistant Pauline Carroll.

R. Austin: It's my pleasure to introduce Jennifer Jones to the House, visiting here in the gallery. She is a constituency assistant who is located in my office in Terrace but works for the member for North Coast and me, using today's wonderful electronic technology. I'd like everybody to give a warm welcome to Jennifer Jones.

C. Trevena: Along with my colleagues, I have real pleasure in welcoming one of my constituency assistants to the House. Lynne Stone is in the gallery.

I think we all should respect and applaud our constituency assistants, because they do so much of the work that we are respected for.

D. Routley: A while ago a cartoon was passed amongst the CAs — and probably many CAs on the other side of the House as well — where the title was "A typical day in the life of a CA." It showed a blindfolded person throwing a dart at a board covered with labels — health care, education, environment, transportation. Indeed, that's what our CAs have to be able to do. They're very flexible and skilled people.

I want to ask the House to help me welcome my friend and an excellent CA, Patty McNamara.

K. Conroy: I, too, would like to introduce some CAs. I have my own CA here, Edena Brown from Castlegar. It's great to have her in the chamber, as well as Joanne Pagnini, who works for the member for Nelson-Creston. She's here too. We work very closely together in our offices.

H. Lali: I, too, would like to join my rural colleagues in welcoming one of my CAs who is here, Kim Sekhon. She started working for me in the summer and has been doing a fantastic job. This afternoon Shirley Rhodes, who has been working for me for practically two and a half years, will also be arriving to join in the workshop.

B. Simpson: I'm happy to stand and join my colleagues and welcome my CA Jo-Anna Johnston and her two great kids Jayden and Nicholas. They came down earlier this week. Jo-Anna is one of my CAs and one of the people who make sure I'm well represented when I'm down here and she's at home.

Mr. Speaker: If your member failed to recognize you, welcome, if you're one of the CAs.

V. Roddick: Today is national 4-H day. Today is all about showing your 4-H colours — green. Tomorrow, November 2, also has a green theme, as the province will be hosting a climate change symposium with the agriculture sector in Kamloops with the participation of 4-H.

We can learn much from today's children when it comes to climate change. As we all know, children don't think like adults, which in this particular case is a good thing. As the minister said, 4-H stands for head, heart, hands and health. It provides young people with the ability to learn how to become productive, self-assured adults who can make their community and country a better place to live.

The energy, talent and enthusiasm displayed in the barns and show rings around the province, culminating at the PNE every August, are truly contagious. Do join with 4-H as they start a month-long celebration that provides an opportunity for members, volunteers and supporters to celebrate and showcase the many benefits of the 4-H program, which has nurtured and developed Canadian youth since 1913 and B.C. youth since 1914.

May they continue to thrive, grow and mentor others as we work to bridge the urban-agricultural divide. Thank you, 4-H. It is impossible to imagine where our agriculture industry would be without you. Remember, we all still have to eat to live.

G. Coons: As a continuation of yesterday's statement from the member for Prince George–Omineca, I do want to assure the House that this is not a continuing fish tale to be cast back and forth. But I do have to acknowledge the opening of Canada's newest trade corridor as it continues to attract unprecedented international attention.

Phase 1 of the Fairview Container Terminal received its first ship, the Antwerp. As we all know in this House, the Port of Prince Rupert is the significant piece of the puzzle for the whole northern corridor and for British Columbia as well.

Even though the first ship has arrived, we must aggressively promote the development and capacity at Fairview as well as the aviation, telecommunication and then energy infrastructure needed to have the best port possible operating in a green and environmentally friendly way. Even though the first ship has arrived, we can't hesitate one minute to advocate for phase 2, as this is vital to meet this province's transportation strategy.

The coastal Tsimshian, who previously had injunctions on port continuation, still have serious archaeological issues to address. Coastal first nations and those throughout the northern corridor are keenly optimistic to move forward expeditiously on phase 2.

The new terminal was highlighted last week for its geographic and intermodal advantages in a report released by the Conference Board of Canada called Addressing Gaps in the Transportation Network. The report lauds Fairview for choosing intermodal or ship-to-rail as its primary form of transport. They recognize that ship-to-rail promotes responsible development as far as emissions are concerned, meaning less pollution from dirty diesel-burning trucks.

Also, being two days closer to markets means ships' emissions will be lower, and the natural deep harbour requires no dredging that risks globally significant ecosystems. Prince Rupert port development meets both provincial transportation goals and the test of environmental stewardship.

Hon. Speaker, we must alleviate congestion and pollution in the most populated areas and look north. We must look north to the underutilized northern corridor.

J. Nuraney: I rise in the House today to talk about settlement workers and how special they are to all our communities. The settlement workers in schools program is an outreach program helping immigrants and refugee students and their families adjust to Canadian life.

These workers are placed in secondary and elementary schools to provide orientation information and support to newly arrived families, connecting students and families to services and resources in the school and the communities. I'm proud to say that Burnaby is now home to this new program.

I've had the opportunity to understand the difficulties our new immigrant and refugee populations experience when their children enter our school system. Some of the refugee children have never been to a school before and face increasing difficulties in adjusting to their new environment. I'm told by their families that after months of frustration, these children leave our schools and end up on the streets. From 2001 to 2005 approximately 39,000 school-aged immigrants arrived in British Columbia, and most of them settled in the lower mainland and in Greater Victoria.

I am pleased to say today in this House that settlement workers in schools services will be launched in ten school districts this year. The primary objectives of this program are to help immigrant and refugee children adjust to school culture and focus on learning, to provide their parents and caregivers with an understanding of Canadian culture and the school system, and to increase their involvement in the school and the communities.

Together we recognize that cultural and ethnic diversity is a fundamental characteristic of British Columbia and enriches all our lives. This promising partnership is a basis of our future success in helping immigrant students in the school system.

C. Trevena: Mr. Speaker, last month in Campbell River has been one of celebration. The Tidemark

Theatre was marking 20 years of being a part of the city. The Van Isle movie theatre was transformed into the Tidemark 20 years ago.

The Tidemark, owned by the city and managed by the Tidemark Theatre Society, is a unique space in our community. It's a stage for amateur and professional productions — plays, music and dance. It produces the Campbell River Children's Festival and is the site for community meetings and touring bands. The theatre is used as many as 230 days a year, and its lobby is often a venue for art exhibitions. With just ten staff — and of those only four are full-time — the theatre relies heavily on its volunteer base, which is 80 strong. The volunteers come in nightly to run the concession and act as ushers and ticket takers.

The Tidemark is in a building which itself is 60 years old, and it's hoping that on the 20th anniversary of its life, there is an eye to the future. It's looking for upgrades, and the first on the list is an upgrade of the sound system, which is going to cost $150,000 to update speakers, microphones, the lobby system and other aspects.

The Noon Rotary Club of Campbell River has already pledged $50,000 to this, but the list for other renovations is long, including work on the power supply, increased seating and adding a rehearsal room and a set construction area.

The plans are ambitious, but the Tidemark is a hub for the community. The last several weeks has seen a series of events at the theatre, which culminated in a choral concert last Friday and a gala on Saturday to showcase the many talented local performers.

Even in the era of flat-screen TVs and surround sound, the Tidemark will likely continue to be a hub for the city of Campbell River and the surrounding communities in years to come, particularly if the fundraising is successful and the fabric of the building can match the magic created by the many performers who grace the stage.

J. McIntyre: I'm pleased to rise today and salute Whistler Blackcomb's peak-to-peak gondola construction project, which is now well underway since the groundbreaking this spring. I had the pleasure to see first hand in phase 1 the amazing work on mountaintop terrain that was necessary to complete the groundwork in preparation for the erecting of towers 2 and 3, which were just completed.

Next spring phase 2 will involve the delivery of five 100-tonne spools of cable shipped from Europe via the Panama Canal directly to Squamish and then shipped to Whistler on special weight-bearing cars. The challenge of then connecting that cable across the valley from peak to peak is simply mind-boggling.

Once complete, the two mountains of Whistler and Blackcomb will be linked by a gondola that will set the world record for length and height while providing an unparalleled experience for both winter and summer resort guests. The peak-to-peak gondola, with a total capacity of 4,100 passengers per hour, will travel 4.4 kilometres in just 11 minutes, transporting riders from Whistler's Roundhouse Lodge to Blackcomb's Rendezvous Lodge, giving them unprecedented access to both mountains and, of course, spectacular views.

The peak-to-peak gondola will create a dramatically enhanced experience that no other mountain resort in North America and perhaps the world can offer, which is another first for British Columbia. The adventure for summer visitors will include spectacular views of glaciers and peaks as well as access to an expanded hiking trail network on both mountains.

Completion of this record-breaking project, which is yet another example of the world-class engineering feats underway in B.C., is set for December 2008. It will give tourists a new reason to return to Whistler and an economic boost to the Sea to Sky corridor.

Congratulations to the Whistler Blackcomb team and to Rick Temple, the project manager, who are making a project of this magnitude a reality in our province.

N. Macdonald: There have been a number of small-plane crashes in my area that have resulted in fatalities in the last few weeks, and members will know that amongst the tragic deaths was an incredible story of survival. Three-year-old Kate Williams was rescued from a downed plane only minutes before darkness fell.

The crash had claimed the lives of her grandfather Mr. Allen Williams and Mr. Steven Sutton of Edmonton. Her grandfather's care in strapping her into a car seat for the flight was an important part of her survival, but the work of rescuers was critically important. This involved Canadian Forces search and rescue professionals and the system in place to support them.

When they arrived in Golden, Sergeant Elliston and Master Corporal Lapointe joined a very experienced local helicopter pilot, Don McTighe, and Ian Foss, who volunteers with the Golden Search and Rescue. They went into very difficult country in tough weather. They moved up the Blaeberry River to Redburn Creek. It is incredibly difficult country to work in.

They found her quickly, and they flew her to our hospital in Golden and then on to Calgary children's hospital while other volunteer search and rescue personnel went into the crash site on the ground to work through to close to midnight to recover the bodies of Mr. Williams and Mr. Sutton.

Speaking to Ian Foss this morning, he praised the professionalism of the Canadian Forces personnel. He praised, as well, Don McTighe, who's done things like this many, many times; the paramedic service; as well as, of course, Golden Search and Rescue volunteers. I think all of us are incredibly fortunate to have volunteers supporting rescue efforts around the province.

In Golden, like almost all of our communities, we have highly trained volunteers. We see these people training. We see them raising funds to buy equipment. They are there when people are most desperate for help.

I know the House shares tremendous relief that Kate is healthy. I know the House would pass along sympathies to those that have lost their lives, and I ask members to join me in showing our deep appreciation to those that take on the incredibly difficult job of search and rescue.

B. Simpson: This week Pope and Talbot filed for bankruptcy protection in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. They filed under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act. That act was actually designed in the 1930s in order to protect social interests while a company liquidated its assets.

You can file for standing with that court for two purposes: (1) as a creditor, to protect your financial interests; and (2) as a social stakeholder, in order to protect the interests of the communities in a given region.

My question is to the Minister of Economic Development. There are significant jobs, there are significant contractor implications, and there are significant community economic development implications of this bankruptcy case. Has the Crown registered itself for standing in order to protect those social interests as a social stakeholder?

Hon. C. Hansen: That is not an issue that would come specifically through my particular ministry, but I can tell you that we have an active team that works in Nanaimo on economic development projects throughout the Island. We have seen tremendous economic growth on the Island. We have seen unemployment rates come down to record lows on Vancouver Island, as we have in other parts of British Columbia.

So while we are seeing parts of industries in our province going through transition, we are working with those communities and making sure that they are well supported. But in the meantime, I don't have a specific answer for the member's very specific question.

B. Simpson: I think the Kootenays are in the southeast part of the interior of British Columbia, not on Vancouver Island.

This is serious. There are contractors who have millions of dollars at stake, who currently don't have protection. There are communities who have their lands and their livelihood and their economy at stake because they don't have protection.

There is a vehicle under this act that allows the Crown — this government — to, for once, stand up and protect the public interest over the corporate interests that are going to cash out their B.C. assets to pay their American creditors.

B. Simpson: My question again to the minister is: would the minister at least engage with his staff in finding out how to register the Crown with standing as a social stakeholder, and commit today that he will send a team into the Kootenays to consult with those communities about what's going to happen with their future in the southeastern interior of British Columbia?

Hon. C. Hansen: I apologize to the member. I actually took his question in the context of the challenges that Nanaimo is facing in the Harmac mill, which is part and parcel of the same file.

We do have economic development staff in the Kootenays as well. They've been working with communities. I can tell the member that in the late 1990s, the Kootenays was actually a part of the province that had one of the highest unemployment rates in British Columbia. At that time they had unemployment rates in the 16-percent range. I can tell you that today in the Kootenays, they actually see unemployment rates at record lows — below 5 percent.

That doesn't diminish the challenge that these particular families and these particular workers are going through and, obviously, the interests of the Crown. As a government, we will make sure that those interests are protected.

B. Simpson: I'll take that as a definite no. This minister will not stand up and protect the community interests in the Kootenays in this particular case.

This is 2007. This Friday or Monday, Pope and Talbot will tell that region what the possibility is for their future. We need standing. We need standing on behalf of the Crown. The minister is saying no.

My question then will go to the Deputy Premier. We've asked the Minister of Forests in this case to prevent the sale of private lands in tree farm licence 23 in the Kootenays. We've said to prevent that. We've asked the Minister of Forests to stand up and do that.

The Minister of Forests says that that company does not have the right to sell those lands. They've got it listed on a webpage for sale. I have an affidavit here signed by the CEO of Pope and Talbot, which actually indicates the lands have already sold. The lands have already sold.

So my question to the Deputy Premier is: if the minister is telling us that he has to approve the sale, if that's what he believes, then why is it that Pope and Talbot told the court that they've already cashed those assets out? Is Pope and Talbot breaking the law, and if they are, will the Deputy Premier commit today to investigate this matter and signal to Pope and Talbot that those lands are not for sale?

Hon. S. Bond: We'll take that question on notice for the Minister of Forests.

K. Conroy: I want to point out that in the affidavit, the lands that are up for sale are on the Arrow Lakes. They affect the people of the Kootenays.

One of those pieces of land for sale is for sale for $11.3 million — just one chunk. It's Shelter Bay on the lakes — just one piece, $11.3 million.

Mr. Speaker: Member, I want to remind you. That last question was taken on notice. Is this a new question?

There are hundreds of people potentially out of work if this deal goes through. There are hundreds of contractors who will not get paid if this deal goes through. The economic viability of the West Kootenay region is in jeopardy. There is a crisis in our region, and I want the Minister of Economic Development to stand up in this House and tell us how the government is going to save the West Kootenays from this crisis.

Hon. C. Hansen: Well, it's a little much to take from this member. I can tell this member, if she's not in touch with her own constituents, that when there was an economic crisis in this province…. When there was an economic crisis in the Kootenays, it was during the 1990s, when they saw unemployment rates hit 16 percent.

We have seen unemployment rates in the Kootenays come down to the 5-percent range. That's good news for the economic future of these communities. We will work with these communities and with these families to make sure that they have a strong economic future.

Mr. Speaker: I want to remind members that we want to listen to the question, and we want to listen to the answer.

K. Conroy: Well, that's small comfort to the hundreds of people who are looking at being put out of work in the Kootenays at this very moment.

I want to point out that the person on the affidavit in the Supreme Court in Ontario, who has his name in to buy this potential land for $11.3 million, happens to be Ilkay Development, the very same developer who got the land — snapped it up — from Jordan River through the very same way that this government allowed a company to walk away from a social contract. Is that not interesting?

The minister, this government…. The people are not being listened to. People are not being listened to about Jordan River. They're not being listened to in the Kootenays. We have an economic crisis. We have people waiting. They want to know what's going to happen.

The only thing that can save people right now in this region is to have this government say no to the Supreme Court in Ontario — that this cannot go through, that these lands cannot be sold. We need to hear that now, today, so that people can have some small comfort.

Mr. Speaker: I just want to remind the member that a portion of that question was taken on notice.

Hon. C. Hansen: The Deputy Premier did take the substance of that on notice for the Minister of Forests. What I can tell the member is that if you want to look at the greatest devastation that was done to the forest sector in British Columbia, you can go back and look at the 1990s. You can look at what the code did to the forest sector in all parts of this province. I can tell you this government has done more to revive…

Hon. C. Hansen: … and re-energize and refocus the forest industry in British Columbia than ten years of NDP government could have ever dreamt of doing.

L. Krog: Well, the Minister of Economic Development can talk about the history of the province, and he can fluster and bluster all he wants. But $4.1 million in taxes annually to the city of Nanaimo, 500 decent jobs and $50 million in payroll…. His answer doesn't cut it for my constituents in Nanaimo.

Since he seems to be bewildered by the concept of actually stepping up to the plate in the bankruptcy action and taking the right process and doing the right thing for the people of British Columbia, my question is to the Attorney General. He's in command of the Attorney General's Ministry.

Has he instructed counsel to appear at this bankruptcy proceeding, to protect the interests of 500 workers in Nanaimo?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think if you look at the track record of support for communities in British Columbia that has happened in the last six years, it has been pretty stellar — including the community of Nanaimo.

Hon. C. Hansen: In fact, if you look at what has been happening on Vancouver Island over these last six years as compared to the previous ten years, we've actually seen some phenomenal growth in employment in Vancouver Island.

Last month, in fact, we saw a net gain of 1,100 jobs on Vancouver Island alone — an unemployment rate that is in the 4-percent range. We actually see an economy on Vancouver Island that has in the last six years regained its vibrancy compared to the 1990s.

We know that those families associated with that particular plant are asking questions. We are working with them. We are looking to ensure that there is a viable economy on central Vancouver Island for the future and for those families.

L. Krog: If this government had been working with the people on Vancouver Island, they wouldn't have kissed off all the private forest lands out of the tree farm licences, which has led us to this situation. I'd be giving a two-minute statement about the prosperity of Pope and Talbot instead of talking about its bankruptcy in this House. So we in the opposition are not about to…

L. Krog: …take a lecture about economics with a government that has had six and a half years to ensure the viability of the forest industry in the province of British Columbia.

I have one question for the Attorney General again, the chief law enforcement officer of the province and legal adviser to the Crown. Is he going to step into the bankruptcy proceeding and protect the interests of my constituents or not?

Hon. C. Hansen: Now, that definitely meets the definition of bluster in this House.

In the 1990s we actually saw B.C.'s economic growth go to last place in Canada. We saw after-tax disposable income from British Columbians at the lowest of any province in Canada in terms of its growth. We saw during the last four years of the NDP government a net out-migration from British Columbia of 52,000 people moving to other provinces.

In the same period of time — in the last four years — under this government, we have seen a net in-migration from other parts of Canada of 29,000 people coming to actually capitalize on the great opportunities that we have.

We're not going to continue, Member. You might as well take your seat for a second.

I want to remind members that you're not to refer to whether members are here or not.

R. Austin: My question is to the Attorney General. I would like to ask him if he'd like to commit in this House today to look into the bankruptcy proceedings that are taking place in Ontario with regards to Pope and Talbot and intervene on behalf of the public interest to make sure the public interest is taken care of and not the private corporations.

R. Austin: I have a new question. I represent a part of the province that economically was doing a heck of a lot better in the 1990s than it is today. The only reason unemployment is down in the Skeena region…

Hon. Speaker, last week I got up and asked the question of the Minister of Forests with regards to the….

R. Austin: Last week I got up and asked the question with regards to the closure of the last sawmill in northwest British Columbia, Skeena Sawmills.

R. Austin: I asked if there was any plan from the Minister of Forests, and I got rebuffed with nothing.

So my question to the Minister of Economic Development: now that we are seeing the last sawmill closing indefinitely, would his ministry like to come up and meet with those in Terrace who have their own forestry plan put together by members of the community, not by Ken Dobell? We can't afford those kinds of guys. We've just got regular people.

Would he like to come up and speak to the people in Terrace who have a forestry plan and see if his ministry can help us to put that plan in place?

Hon. C. Hansen: I would suggest that this member actually sit down and have a coffee or a tea with his neighbouring colleague from North Coast, who was just talking earlier about the wonderful new port development, the container facilities…. He might want to talk to the MLA from the riding on the east side of him, who can tell him all about the mineral exploration that's taking place in the northeast part….

Just to share one more little piece of information that he may not be aware of, when I was serving as an opposition member in this House while the NDP were in office, his region of the province had an unemployment rate in excess of 16 percent. Today it's down to 7 percent.

J. Horgan: If the government is so sure that they left the public interest on the table in the interests of corporate profits, will the minister leave the bosom of the sycophants on that side of the House and come to a public meeting in Victoria? Does he have the jam to talk to real people about what they did in Jordan River, what they did in Sooke and what they're doing in Port Renfrew? Have you got the guts to do that?

Hon. C. Hansen: In the 11 years that I've been a member of this House and in the six years that I've been a member of this government, I've had the privilege of being able to meet with community groups in virtually every single community around this province. What I find as I go around the province is that in every region of British Columbia, there is a tremendous new optimism and excitement about this province that simply was not there under the NDP government.

A. Dix: My question is for the Minister of Children and Family Development. His ministry spent $560,000 on renovations to its fourth-floor headquarters, almost three times the original budget presented by his chief financial officer. Documents show the minister personally signed off on the project and personally oversaw and knew about the overrun.

Hon. Speaker, fancier meeting rooms instead of services for people such as those that use the services of the Mary Manning Centre. How can the minister justify such outrageously mistaken priorities?

Hon. T. Christensen: I hope this doesn't come as a surprise to the member, but the minister doesn't actually pick up a hammer and oversee these projects. There is never a good time to spend money on office space, but staff within the Ministry of Children and Family Development deserve appropriate space in which to do their work.

Yes, we have undertaken a renovation at the head office of the ministry — not the minister's office; the head office of the ministry here in Victoria. Let's look at what we've done at the same time that the renovation has gone on.

We have put in place the highest budget ever for the Ministry of Children and Family Development — $1.9 billion. A budget that will increase a further $257 million over the next couple of years. That has allowed us to hire more than 200 new front-line staff. It has allowed us to increase by over 13 percent the number of front-line child protection workers since we became government. All of that is making a difference to children and families across this province.

A. Dix: Well, hon. Speaker, this is an outrageous overrun. The minister signed off on it. The documents show he signed off on it. The documents show that his own chief financial officer said they could do this for $200,000. They spent $560,000.

At the very time, he was denying funding to places such as the Mary Manning Centre. This shows profoundly mistaken priorities and disrespect for the very children and families that his ministry is supposed to serve. This money is voted in this Legislature to serve children and families, not for fancy renovations.

Why doesn't he simply admit that his priorities were wrong? He made a mistake, and he shouldn't have approved these fancy renovations and instead should have seen that that money went where it belongs — with children and families in British Columbia.

Hon. T. Christensen: The member knows very well that this type of renovation doesn't come at the cost of operating budgets. We have increased the funding to child and youth mental health by double — child and youth mental health, which that opposition ignored for the whole decade of the '90s. A 90-percent increase in the number of children and youth being served in this province.

At the same time, we have more than doubled the funding to children and youth with special needs across the province, and we have engaged in the most collaborative process with aboriginal people in this province to try and address the long-outstanding challenges of too many aboriginal children in care — all of which we will continue to do.

I am happy to put this government's record in serving children and families up against that opposition any day of the week.

R. Fleming: What has clearly doubled in this fiscal year on the fourth floor of the MCFD building is the budget for those renovations — $560,000, originally budgeted for $200,000.

Whether the renovations were needed or not is not the point. The point is that the minister signed off. He found the money for that over-budget project, but he refused the Mary Manning Centre when it had a shortfall for counselling services for sexually abused children. Does the minister have more time and sympathy for over-budget projects than counselling services for children in this province?

Hon. T. Christensen: The budget for the renovations is met. It is not over budget. It is a project that

provides the space necessary to enable the ministry to host meetings with stakeholders and to provide training space that for a long time has not been available to the ministry.

It has not been done at the cost of programming. In fact, the ministry's budget has increased dramatically over last year. We have increased child and youth mental health services by $17 million in the last year, all of which is part of a concrete plan — one that the opposition never had when they were in government — to ensure that we continuously improve services to children and youth across the province.

R. Fleming: Let's recap the week in this ministry. The minister has been caught heavily severing, censoring, reports to the public from the FOI officer — without a care, with total denial. Now he's been caught funding cosmetic office renovations that are way over budget.

My question for the minister is: when does the Mary Manning Centre get your attention?

Hon. T. Christensen: The sad fact is that the Mary Manning Centre and the 48 other SAIP programs around this province were ignored for a whole decade during the 1990s. The even sadder fact is that child and youth mental health was largely ignored for a whole decade in the 1990s.

This government has implemented a five-year plan to improve child and youth mental health services. That has included a doubling of the budget, a 90-percent increase in the children and youth being served across the province.

We initiated a review of the sexual abuse intervention program. We are acting on the recommendations of that review to ensure that we have the strongest sexual abuse intervention programming available to serve the children and youth of this province.

M. Farnworth: We heard this minister say that a $300,000 cost overrun is not his responsibility. Now we understand why the convention centre is $400 million overrun: because there doesn't seem to be ministerial accountability.

My question to the minister is simple. If he doesn't believe a $300,000 cost overrun is his responsibility, on whose desk does the buck stop for a $300,000 cost overrun?

Hon. T. Christensen: I can understand why the opposition would like to focus on a $300,000 alleged cost overrun that actually isn't a cost overrun. The project was done within budget.

Hon. T. Christensen: I'd much rather focus on the improvement in services to children and families across the province — 9,000 children and youth…

Hon. T. Christensen: …across British Columbia currently getting services under the child and youth mental health plan that would never have had service if those guys had remained in government.

L. Krog: I wish to table a petition against the meat industry regulations, asking for reinstatement of farm-gate sales.

N. Macdonald: I would like to table a petition with 1,237 signatures against meat industry regulations, asking for reinstatement of farm-gate sales.

J. Horgan: I rise to table a petition with 1,600 signatures against the meat regulations and calling for reinstatement of farm-gate sales.

S. Simpson: I'd like to submit a petition with 500 signatures collected from lower mainland Liberal ridings against meat industry regulations and asking for reinstatement of farm-gate sales.

G. Coons: I'd like to join my colleague from Bulkley Valley–Stikine and present a petition with 150 signatures collected from northern constituencies against the meat regulations, asking for reinstatement of farm-gate sales.

Hon. M. de Jong: Hon. Speaker, I call continued committee stage debate on Bill 40.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 40; S. Hammell in the chair.

M. Sather: On section 34. "British Columbia will Consult with Tsawwassen First Nation in respect of: a. the establishment of new Provincial Parks, Protected Areas or Wildlife Management Areas." I wanted to explore just a little bit with the minister about the

Back in 2002 the Tsawwassen First Nation went to court over the destruction of their environment. They then settled out of court in 2004 in a memorandum of agreement with the Vancouver Port Authority. Attached to that agreement is a letter from the Deputy Minister of Environment saying that the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection — the now Ministry of Environment — will not seek the application of the wildlife management area over either water lot. They're talking about the area along the causeway.

Clearly, the TFN did not want wildlife management area designation. Now, I don't know why, but I'm imagining that it might be that they see it as another kind of jurisdiction over their territory, which might interfere with their ability to manage their territory.

I haven't seen this referred to — anything about this particular wildlife management area. It, of course, is a very, very rich wildlife area. There had been attempts over the years to make it a wildlife management area. I haven't seen it referred to in the final agreement, but I'm wondering if the minister could tell me if there is reference to that particular wildlife management area in the agreement.

Hon. M. de Jong: To the member: apologies for the delay. The specific reference in support of the proposition around the issue that the member has raised is contained in section 29 in chapter 4, the lands section, where it reflects the agreement that was reached with specific respect to the water lots and wildlife management areas.

It seems that the Tsawwassen First Nation is not positively disposed towards the formation of wildlife management areas. So is it going to be more difficult to form new wildlife management areas now that we have this agreement? As we sign more treaties, are we going to see our wildlife management areas — new ones — be a thing of the past?

Hon. M. de Jong: No, not necessarily a thing of the past. But I think it is fair for the member to comment that in situations where the treaty settlement areas are very small…. My guess is there would be a reluctance to adopt designations that impose additional restrictions.

I think it is fair to observe that in certain unique kinds of settlements where the treaty settlement area is quite small, we can anticipate a fairly focused discussion. I would stop short of saying, however, that they are a thing of the past.

S. Fraser: To the minister: we are finished with the questioning on chapter 13, I believe. We can move on to chapter 14, "Culture and Heritage."

G. Gentner: In general, I suppose. I'm following up on a question from the member for Vancouver-Hastings on Burns Bog just very quickly. We have an operating agreement today. After the ecosystem review it's going to be operated, of course, by the GVRD, or Metro Vancouver.

It's a very fragile ecosystem, and it's a very unsafe place. I'm just wondering: will members of the TFN have to receive permission before they go into this hostile environment, before entering, or can they come and go as they please?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the technical answer to that lies within the provisions of section 26.

G. Gentner: I take it from section 26 that they will have to comply with the conservation management plan. But the question, therefore, arises that there is no plan yet, and it could actually be up to ten years. Until such time, how will this be enforced?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think I referenced, earlier, the work that was being undertaken pending finalization of the various plans with the conservancy and the good work taking place with the Corporation of Delta, where an attempt is being made to identify an appropriate area in the interim.

S. Fraser: I apologize for the false start there a moment ago. I believe we are now prepared to move on to chapter 14, which is "Culture and Heritage."

S. Fraser: This is not a very long chapter, but it's an important one, I know, to first nations. We have a heritage act in place that I think is, arguably, quite lacking, and I know that my colleague the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin has put forward a private member's bill to try to address some of those issues.

The premise of chapter 14, to protect culture and heritage — can the minister explain…? That negotiation for these provisions — did that involve elders, traditional knowledge? Can you just give the context of how this section was arrived at?

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for drawing attention to what he aptly describes as a short but very important chapter — and intensely important for the Tsawwassen First Nation.

In describing the manner in which these…. I don't think the legal text and the language do justice to the importance attached to this and the work that was undertaken within the Tsawwassen community.

For Chief Baird, the negotiating committee and the council, the level of engagement with the elders and members of the community was, I am advised, particularly intense, because there was a strong desire to ensure that adequate protections existed, that there was recognition being given to the extended history and culture that is who the Tsawwassen people are.

I think it's appropriate for the member to point out and pose the question, because within the community, I am certain — advised as well — that there was extensive consultation that took place. The bulk of it was internal, of course, but it capitalized on the experiences of the elders and other members of the community.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister. I guess it may be a hypothetical question, but human remains, ancestral remains that might have been…. I don't know if this necessarily applies to the Tsawwassen, but in a hypothetical situation it may.

For instance, the Tseycum First Nation on Vancouver Island have remains of ancestors that have been…. Essentially, there was grave-robbing over a century ago, and these remains have been distributed to museums, largely in the States — in New York, Boston, a few different places. They are making valiant attempts to reclaim their ancestral remains. They've done fundraising and everything on their own. They haven't received any assistance, even though they've requested assistance from the ministry and from the government to actually effect that reclamation process.

I couldn't see it here, but is there anything in the culture and heritage section that might address those needs for the Tsawwassen, should they discover that remains have been removed at previous times?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, with specific reference to the agreement and the chapter, I note and would point the member to sections 11 through 17, which refer to Tsawwassen artifacts, artifacts that come into permanent possession of the Royal British Columbia Museum. The member will see the reference to the one-time payment at effective date, when "British Columbia will pay to Tsawwassen First Nation one million dollars ($1,000,000) to establish a Cultural Purposes Fund," which of course they will administer as they see fit.

There is the reference at section 26 to archaeological human remains and the obligation that is triggered should those remains come into the possession of Canada or British Columbia after the effective date.

The negotiators for the parties certainly turned their mind to the issue that the member has highlighted and have tried to anticipate circumstances in which it might be necessary to conclude some unfinished business, as it were, that we might not be aware of now but that might arise in the future.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for the answer. I'm aware of the sections. In the example I gave with Tseycum First Nation, the remains are out of country, so that's made it particularly challenging. There's no mention of trying to address something that's on the international stage. Within the province or within the country presumably there are mechanisms that are referred to here.

I guess for the clarification of the $1 million, it's a cultural purposes fund. Would it be within the realm of possibilities that that fund could be used in a reclamation process? Is that within the mandate of that fund?

S. Fraser: "Heritage resources." It says in section 18: "Before the Effective Date, Tsawwassen First Nation and British Columbia may negotiate and attempt to reach agreement to provide for the meaningful participation of Tsawwassen First Nation in the identification, conservation, interpretation, management and protection of heritage sites that are…." I won't go through the a, b and c. Suffice to say that there is no mention of when. It says: "Before the effective date…."

Effective date, I'm assuming, is if this is ratified federally and the Tsawwassen treaty becomes in effect. Would this have to happen prior to that, and is it anticipated? That could happen quite quickly, if it gets to the federal arena before the end of their sitting.

Hon. M. de Jong: Earlier in the proceedings I indicated my best guess around when the effective date might be — in the early part of 2009. What this section does is signal the desire the parties have prior to that date to negotiate the agreement that is provided for there. That's the intention of the parties. It probably gives us roughly a year.

S. Fraser: Thank you to the minister for that. I thought the time line was a lot tighter, but thanks for that clarification.

Just two other issues. One of the issues that's touched on, on the proposed order papers now, by the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin — I worked with her on this — is around caves, karst land and karst protection. We've seen recently, in the last year, some issues around traditional territories and sacred sites, a cave being the case here. It's been clear to us on this side that there isn't adequate karst or cave protection. We're trying to assist to bring that to the attention of the government here.

Are there any karst land on this or significant cave structures within the traditional territory that the minister or his staff are aware of? I note there may be limestone in some of the traditional territory, but I couldn't determine whether they were actual caves or karst land.

Hon. M. de Jong: I can confirm for the member that the parties have, to this point at least, exchanged information and attempted to identify, based on present knowledge, all of the relevant sites. There are mechanisms, however, and the parties to the agreement specifically agree to a process by which that would be ongoing. I think sections 23 and 24 in the chapter allow for that and confirm that they have turned their minds to it.

S. Fraser: Okay, so just for clarification, what happened with Bear Mountain is…. The existing Heritage Conservation Act is lacking in some ways, I believe. There are just some gaps there. Anything that was found within, say, a cave structure within the traditional territory of the first nations involved with Bear Mountain was potentially covered under that act, but

not the space itself. If the cave itself or the site itself — it doesn't necessarily have to be a cave — has specific spiritual values, for instance, from history, is there any mechanism in here that specifically could help to protect or recognize those sites? It is an oversight, outside of treaty, through the Heritage Conservation Act. There is no protection based on just a space, a spiritual space. Certainly, with caves, there's not.

Hon. M. de Jong: To the member, I think he's heard me say this before, which is to acknowledge that in my view, based in part on some of the experiences he's referred to, the Heritage Conservation Act is a statute in need of update. Happily, that work is being undertaken.

I know that the member and his colleague have provided a contribution to that effort. They have an interest. The leadership council has a formal, dedicated working group that is working with members of the ministry.

There is, I think it's fair to say, general recognition of the fact that the act needs to be updated to take account of circumstances, of changes in the law and changes in what we are trying to do as part of an overall new relationship. That update, that work and those changes, I think it is equally fair to say, particularly outside of the strict treaty settlement lands, will be helpful once completed if a situation were to arise outside of those treaty settlement lands and will provide the additional tools that I am inclined to agree are presently lacking.

S. Fraser: Thank you for that, to the minister. That is helpful, and it's heartening to hear that these issues are being looked at seriously.

Lastly, a great majority of first nations in British Columbia are not involved in the treaty process or are way down the ladder in the treaty process as far as the stages go, and essentially, are stalled in the treaty process. They have, I think, very pressing needs to address heritage, cultural issues and artifacts. As I've mentioned, there are a number of other nations on the Island here that have had problems with former grave sites being dug up and that sort of thing — where again the act is still lacking, as the minister has mentioned.

Will the provisions that are recognized here for the Tsawwassen through the treaty process, the importance of culture and heritage, the artifacts, the remains, in a spiritual and historic context…? Is there any mechanism being anticipated for addressing these for those nations either not in the treaty process or stalled in the treaty process who might be at risk of losing sacred sites or who are trying to get back artifacts?

It could take a long time for them to get some of the same rights and protection that the Tsawwassen have accomplished through this treaty.

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm not going to stray too far from the pages of the agreement, but suffice to say I agree that the very shortcomings that we spoke of and identified a few moments ago as they relate to the Heritage Conservation Act visit in a very similar way on first nations right across British Columbia.

The member has, in my view, made a very good argument highlighting the urgency of the work that is being undertaken now and the broader application and importance that it has right across the province.

S. Fraser: With that, we are completed with chapter 14. Chapter 15, "Environmental Management," is coming up. I know our critic has a few questions, as he indicated before.

S. Simpson: I do have just a few questions related to chapter 15. The first question relates to article 1, "Power to make laws." It suggests here that the Tsawwassen will have the power to "make laws applicable on Tsawwassen Lands to manage, protect, preserve and conserve the Environment including laws in respect of…." It talks about prevention, mitigation and remediation — the broad list of things that are important around environmental protection and environmental management, including waste management, protection of air quality and that.

As we know, making the laws is one thing, and then being able to actually administer and apply them afterwards is another. This is a pretty broad list of issues that will require significant resources, I would think, to do this. So could the minister tell us how it's envisioned that will occur, and who will pay for that?

S. Simpson: The actual administration of these laws — a set of Tsawwassen laws that are envisioned to be created by the Tsawwassen government under clause 1. There's a significant set of issues there to be dealt with. How's that going to be administered? Who's going to do that?

Hon. M. de Jong: If the Tsawwassen First Nation chooses to draw down on the power that is provided here and enact those kinds of provisions, they will be assuming responsibility for the administration and governance.

S. Simpson: Does that include responsibility for paying for it — all the costs — as well?

S. Simpson: So these laws, any laws that are established here — how will…? I notice under article 2 it says, of course, that a "Federal or Provincial Law prevails to the extent of a Conflict with a Tsawwassen Law made under clause 1."

If the Tsawwassen band sets in place a number of these laws and sets up structures to administer them, how does that relate to the province in terms of the provincial responsibility? Does the province then say: "Okay, Tsawwassen, you've established certain processes related to the administration of environ-

mental management. Those are okay with us, so we're not going to be monitoring or overseeing that area, because that's now your responsibility"?

Or does the province continue to say, "We will continue to do what we do with oversight as well," and you end up with a double process there?

Hon. M. de Jong: …try to explain this is to draw a parallel between the law-making authority provided to local governments under the Community Charter. So if we can think of the responsibilities that accrue pursuant to the Community Charter and the relationship that exists between an entity under the Community Charter and the provincial government, in general terms, one would see the same interplay and the same relationship here.

S. Simpson: Well, let's just assume for a moment that…. This is a pretty broad area of responsibility that the Tsawwassen government could choose to take on. Now, if they determined there are parts of this that at this point or maybe for the next number of years they don't feel comfortable in doing, as they evolve their own capacity — because it's a pretty big challenge — then where does responsibility rest for those areas where they say: "We're not going to step into that right now"? Does it rest with the province?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the member has it. He may not have offered an opinion, so I'll try to offer an answer. In a situation where the Tsawwassen First Nation chose not to draw down on the power or enter into the field, then existing provincial laws and enforcement mechanisms would continue to apply and be applied.

S. Simpson: In some of those areas where, for example, currently there are Metro Vancouver regulations around air quality and issues that are regionally covered — regional government has responsibility around now — what happens there? Does the regional responsibility remain, or does the Tsawwassen Nation and Tsawwassen government have the ability to set its own rules, its own laws that would then supersede regional responsibilities? There are a number of regional responsibilities, particularly air quality–related and others.

Hon. M. de Jong: We're speaking now specifically of air quality. I think the member has correctly identified the provision in section 1 that speaks of regulations or a regulatory regime, if it's acted upon, that must meet or beat. That is also reflective of the fact of the Tsawwassen First Nation membership within what is listed here as the GVRD or Metro Vancouver.

S. Simpson: We know there is some current dispute related to Metro Vancouver and the province around some air quality issues, particularly related to greenhouses, I think, right now on those matters. I know that part of the challenge here is around the ability to enforce the provincial regulation and what jurisdiction Metro Vancouver has to enforce that regulation.

So if the Tsawwassen Nation chose to put in place standards that were at or above that level, would they be in a different place to be able to enforce that, which might give them greater ability to do that than Metro Vancouver seems to be having right now? I know they're having some problems with that, and I know they're in discussions with the Ministry of Environment around that.

How do they get to enforce that other than going to court? What powers do they have to enforce those kind of regulations other than going to court?

Hon. M. de Jong: The chapter and the overall agreement operate in a way…. I think the example that the member gave related to a situation in which the Tsawwassen First Nation sought to enact regulations that were tougher than, for example, Metro Vancouver. Is that the scenario that the member was…?

He agrees that's an example. They would actually, pursuant to the terms of this agreement, have the ability to enforce those regulations on Tsawwassen settlement lands.

S. Simpson: Just to be clear. They'd have the ability to do that unless it contravened a provincial law under the ministry, then, that was different. I know there are discussions going on around this air quality issue, for example. I know there are discussions going on with the Ministry of Environment around some harmonization or standards, because GVRD or Metro Vancouver currently has standards that are higher than the overall provincial standard in terms of particulate.

I know the ministry is now looking at some harmonization somewhere in the middle around that. I don't want to debate whether the number is a good number or a bad number, but they're looking at some harmonization that would change that and would bring Metro Vancouver potentially into line with this broader provincial standard — the new provincial standard that I know is being contemplated by the minister and has been reported in the media a couple of times.

Metro Vancouver is going to get their standard changed, if those news reports are accurate. So what happens then? In that situation, would the Tsawwassen then come in if they were at the same place and be harmonized as well because they contradicted a provincial standard? How does that work in terms of what clause 2 says?

Hon. M. de Jong: Hopefully, this will help. The general proposition as it relates to these environmental standards is that the Tsawwassen, to the extent that they have the authority to create laws and choose to draw down on that authority, will have to enact regulations that meet or beat the provincial standard.

So in a scenario where they are already beating a provincial standard or a GVRD standard, they are fine. They have the authority to enforce that. If a situation were to develop where the province made the standard tougher than what exists in the Tsawwassen First Nation regulation, two things would happen.

First of all, there's an obligation on the province to consult with the Tsawwassen First Nation. We'd have to notify them and talk with them about the changes. Ultimately, pursuant to these provisions, the Tsawwassen themselves would have to bring their regulation into line so that they were once again meeting or beating that provincial standard.

Hopefully, that helps the member in terms of explaining the interplay between the two jurisdictions.

S. Simpson: I'm going to move to "Environmental assessment," I think. I kind of understand it.

In the environmental assessment process that currently exists…. I know that clause 3 talks about environmental processes and then moves on to a more detailed discussion of environmental assessment. There were changes made in 2002 to the environmental assessment process regulations, which changed the role for first nations.

What it did is a couple of things that immediately come to mind. One is that it took out the project committees which were part of any environmental assessment and in which first nations who were within those areas had a seat. They were entitled to a seat in those processes at that time. Those committees went by the wayside, and first nations now have been dealt with, in large part, as a stakeholder in much the same way that others have been dealt with as stakeholders.

I know I've had concerns raised to me about that around some projects in the province. Could the minister tell us what's going to change in terms of the relationship that the Tsawwassen will have around their participation in environmental assessments that may impact them, either on their lands or around adjacent lands, which is more likely to be the case?

I'm thinking about port development and those kinds of things. Those will also be harmonized, because they'll be federal-provincial. They'll be harmonized environmental assessments. But either on the harmonized or, at least at this point, on a provincial environmental assessment, how is their role going to be different in terms of their ability to influence or have input than it would be currently as a first nation?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the big difference in terms of status is that the Tsawwassen First Nation, pursuant to the provisions of this agreement, will have a guaranteed right of involvement that cannot be altered statutorily.

Now, how that plays out in terms of practical involvement may well look a lot like local government involvement. But the difference will be that by virtue of its presence in this agreement, that right to be involved in the process is guaranteed and cannot be statutorily altered.

S. Simpson: With that involvement in the process — and maybe we'll talk a little bit about some of the specific roles they get to play — one of the things that used to occur, and I don't believe it necessarily occurs any longer, is that first nations…. There often would be — particularly around significant projects or developments where an environmental assessment was of a significant nature — some financial support provided to allow a first nation to do the assessments they needed to do from a technical or scientific point of view to ensure that their interests were being considered and that they had the appropriate information to be able to represent their interests.

Is there any expectation here in this agreement that there would be that support, or would it be up to the Tsawwassen to provide those resources for themselves?

Hon. M. de Jong: Primarily, the resources would be drawn from the fiscal financing agreement. The other significant point to be made is that to the extent that there are other funding sources of general application available, nothing in the agreement precludes the Tsawwassen First Nation from also accessing or applying to access any additional funding that might be available on a general basis.

S. Simpson: This is a bit of a flyer. I'm not even sure that I've got this one right. Let me see if I can put out the question, and maybe the minister will get it right.

Local governments have a role that they get to play in an environmental assessment. They generally come and bring their own resources to the table as a local government and make their own case. They have their staff. They do all those things. Delta, for example, will make its own case, bring its own staff, hire its own consultants or whatever, if it needs to engage in a discussion around an environmental assessment.

First nations, other bands often would come. They may not have that capacity, and they will seek and sometimes may be successful in getting some intervener dollars or resources, whether they're federal or provincial, to help them to build their case.

For now, is the Tsawwassen band going to be viewed as a local government that has the involvement of a local government, which is different than a first nation but will be seen to then have to carry the can for itself? Or will it seen as a first nation that may be able to access those other resources? Where does it fall in this now that it has this new, unique status among first nations?

Hon. M. de Jong: They certainly enjoy a status, pursuant to this agreement, that is significant and a right to participate that is guaranteed. They certainly, pursuant to this agreement, have access to the provisions and resources contained within the fiscal financing agreement.

Beyond that, as the member correctly points out, there may be funding made available from time to time in a general way, be it to first nations or to communities generally. This agreement cannot be raised by

others or by government as representing an impediment to the Tsawwassen First Nation to apply for those additional resources that might be available to other communities.

So it's a hybrid. Obviously, they enjoy a status that is different, but they are not to be penalized for that status.

S. Simpson: Just so I'm clear. The status they have here as a level or a form of government for themselves — that is, the Tsawwassen government — is a status that is unique to them and to the Nisga'a and to others in the future, once this is approved. So they will have that. Any other opportunities afforded to first nations or resources that may be made available to first nations around environment or, I assume, around other areas…. They can avail themselves of those opportunities as well. Nothing changes around their ability to avail themselves of those resources in addition to whatever this agreement affords them.

Hon. M. de Jong: Yes, the authority for the proposition I've advanced is actually contained in section 36 of "General Provisions," which I think is chapter 2 of the agreement.

S. Simpson: One of the issues around environmental assessment that I'll be interested to know is whether the Tsawwassen band will be able to be a full participant in the development of the terms of reference or criteria for any environmental assessment. I know sometimes the criticism is around the breadth of the assessments that happen and whether they incorporate all of the issues that interested parties believe should be incorporated.

Developing those terms of reference becomes an important part of making sure that an environmental assessment is as comprehensive as need be, and that's not necessarily afforded to groups easily. Will the Tsawwassen band have a role in developing the terms of reference criteria, those things for assessments, that they are of the view are either on their lands or that impact them?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think there are two parts to the answer. With respect to the Tsawwassen settlement lands themselves, of course, the Tsawwassen have broad law-making authority. Assuming they set provisions that meet or beat a provincial standard, they would determine that and have broad authority.

Outside of that, of course, they have the guaranteed right of participation, and that would be consistent with the mechanisms by which local governments generally participate. The member is right that this tends to evolve and change and sometimes is particular to a specific project. Their rights in that respect would equate with those of other local governments.

S. Simpson: I just want to move to article 9. My reading of article 9 is that for any project that proceeds and that has any part of the project on Tsawwassen lands, the Tsawwassen have a veto.

S. Simpson: I want to inquire a little bit about how broad that might be in terms of what's considered "on the lands." If the Tsawwassen government can make the case that this project that is happening has a material impact on their lands, a real impact on their treaty lands, does that then invoke their ability to veto, or does the project have to actually occur on their lands?

Hon. M. de Jong: If I understand the member's example correctly, I don't believe that situation would trigger this section. It would trigger others but not this section.

S. Simpson: Under "Environmental emergencies," article 11 says: "As the owner of, or decision-maker in respect of, Tsawwassen Lands, Tsawwassen First Nation has responsibility for the prevention of, preparedness for, timely response to and recovery from Environmental Emergencies that originate on Tsawwassen Lands."

Will they be expected to have that full capacity to be able to deal with those emergencies? I know it does say further on down that others — the government; the province, the federal government or local governments, presumably — can come on and deal with things if they're not being dealt with. If there's a problem or if it's a bigger issue than Tsawwassen can deal with themselves, others can come in and help to do the job.

But is it then expected that they will have all that capacity to do that, whether it's spill kits, equipment — all of those things?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm not sure what I can add to the progression that exists from sections 11 to 14. It does set out that primary responsibility on Tsawwassen lands will be with the Tsawwassen First Nation. If there's a situation in which something is not being dealt with, then the Crown can step in.

Probably in the short term the most important provision is section 14, which contemplates the negotiation of an agreement that would take account of what I think the member was pointing out, which is the time that would be necessary to develop the capacity.

Probably, in some cases, a decision would be made simply to contract out for certain services. That is what I think is contemplated here. I don't know that the Tsawwassen would have the means or the interest in immediately developing a full suite of emergency preparedness, from hazmat teams to one thing or another.

Section 14 says: "All right, then, let's sit down and hash out an agreement that says how we're going to respond." I think some of that work has already taken place, and it's certainly part of the master agreement discussions that are taking place with the corporation of Delta.

S. Simpson: This particular section…. I think it's always important for any jurisdiction, but here, of

course, being next door to Deltaport and all of the activities that go on at Deltaport, the possibility for a significant accident or problem from Deltaport is always there. I'm sure they work hard to make sure they don't have those accidents, but sometimes they happen.

Would Deltaport, then, be part of this discussion as well — the port authority? Would they be reasonably expected to be part of that? What's their relationship around this kind of emergency preparedness, as a federal entity? Or are they just represented by the federal government in those discussions around Tsawwassen's rights and authority to be prepared to deal with something that might happen out of Deltaport?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the answer to the question is no. This relates exclusively to treaty settlement lands and defines those obligations. There are protocols that exist insofar as the port. The member is right. The port is high-end industrial activity, handling a variety of goods, and therefore, there are protocols in place.

The point I take from the member's question, however, is that as the Tsawwassen make decisions around the use of Tsawwassen settlement lands, treaty lands, they will have to be cognizant of the potential for accident, depending on the decisions they make and what use they make of those lands. That may lend itself to partnerships with a variety of third parties. I think much of that will depend on some of the decisions they make about how they're going to use their land.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that this deals with what happens on treaty lands, on settlement lands.

The reason I raise the question of the port, as well, is because the reality certainly could be that an accident or an incident out of Deltaport could very easily cause an environmental emergency on treaty lands pretty quickly, depending on what the nature of that was. If you had a ship that started spilling oil or whatever, you'd create a problem on treaty lands pretty quickly. If that's the case, then any response….

What the minister, I think, is saying is that any arrangement that needs to be made is then one that Tsawwassen is going to have to negotiate itself with the Vancouver Port Authority on how that works and what those protocols are. Will that be a matter between Tsawwassen and the port authority? Or does the federal government play a role there or the province or what?

Hon. M. de Jong: The option to negotiate such agreements, obviously, exists and is contemplated under the agreement. I'm not sure the example was the greatest one because, of course, there's a whole series of other obligations and protocols that would apply and visit upon the agency responsible for that kind of environmental accident.

But the observation that the Tsawwassen would have the option…. There's nothing to preclude them from doing that. Then they could pursue that with the port or any other agency.

G. Gentner: Excuse this sort of mishmash approach here. I've tried to identify where to raise these questions, and under the general heading of environment, I feel, is probably the area to do so. Correct me if I've missed something earlier in a discussion on this.

I'm intrigued with…. Recent legislation a few years back was, I'd have to call it, the downloading of responsibility of streamside protection to local government. Regarding that, now that the onus has been on the municipalities to create their own streamside protection, there is, I understand, a riparian habitat act engaged through — or that would evolve from — the province. How does that work in conjunction, through this treaty?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think I'm going to need to clarify from the member. Are we talking about law-making authorities on the treaty settlement lands or some other portion of lands that are referred to in the agreement?

G. Gentner: It's the treaty settlement lands in particular, and the expanding areas as well. Everything from the ditches and sloughs to the intertidal zones would be, it is my understanding, under the umbrella of recent legislation.

Hon. M. de Jong: It must be a good question, because we've had a bit of a discussion over here. The best advice and information I can give to the member is that, as the provisions of the agreement operate, the provincial legislation would apply.

G. Gentner: Okay. You know, I don't want to get into a discussion yet into what the difference between the local government and the TFN is.

It's inherent upon the TFN, if I have this correct, to create their own laws regarding streamside protection within that zone. Is that not correct? If not, it defaults to provincial legislation.

Hon. M. de Jong: It is the relationship that logically exists between riparian zones and streamside protection and fish habitat that leads me to the conclusion, at this point, that the Tsawwassen First Nation would not, by virtue of this agreement, have the authority to make the kinds of streamside protection regulations that we are talking about.

Trying to cross-check that information. If I receive an opinion that differs from that, I'll pass it along to the member and the committee here.

G. Gentner: Therefore, if the province's legislation overlooks the TFN on the riparian side, who manages it? Who is responsible, liable, and finances any conservation on the riparian side?

Hon. M. de Jong: As a general rule, responsibility for enforcement on Tsawwassen treaty settlement lands would accrue to the Tsawwassen First Nation government.

G. Gentner: Well, now I'm confused. If it's up to the TFN to monitor and finance, and yet it's the provincial legislation…. This is significantly different than, let's say, local government, where local government assumes responsibility through its own bylaws. Since there's no bylaw here that governs streamside protection, it's the province that takes that responsibility. But when it comes down to the maintenance, etc., it seems to me, if I have this correct, it's going to default onto the TFN. I just want to make sure I've got that.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think I have added to the confusion here, and I apologize for that.

I think the way this will operate practically is that the Tsawwassen will have authority, obviously, to manage their lands. That does not, however, preclude a provincial conservation officer or a federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans officer from, in the case we're talking about, entering into a riparian zone and fulfilling the mandate they have to ensure that regulations are being adhered to or that standards are being upheld.

G. Gentner: So the responsibility there falls…. Although the TFN has authority, the conservation people can move into the land and perhaps repair any riparian damage or maintain it. Therefore, the province has enforcement rights to maintain that riparian zone?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think I agree with what the member has said, which is that the Tsawwassen First Nation has the authority to manage the lands but must do so to a certain standard, be it one that exists federally or provincially. The Crown maintains the ability in the circumstances we've been describing to ensure that that is happening and to enter upon the land and ensure that those regulatory standards are being met.

G. Gentner: I don't want to sound as though this is some trivial matter, because I really don't think it is. You know, we're looking at marshlands, intertidal zones rich with riparian habitat and invertebrates that feed an ecosystem that eventually provides food to the most significant salmon-bearing river in North America.

This is a fragile ecosystem that must be maintained. If I have it correct, again the TFN will have the authority to manage, but if they don't reach a certain standard — which is the provincial standard on the land side of things; obviously, in the intertidal zones it would be somewhat federal — conservation officers can go in and enforce.

I just want to know: what is the procedure of enforcement then? How will this roll out?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm sorry. I don't know from the member what he means by: how will this roll out?

G. Gentner: In the eyes of the province, if there are some issues with lack of maintenance of this valuable riparian habitat and streams, does the province move with litigation, or does it consult with the TFN to try and maintain it? What is the process that's in place here, or what will be the process?

Hon. M. de Jong: We're talking about, on the one hand, riparian zones and tidal waters, then fish habitat, all of which are fundamentally important, but the point I need to emphasize is that the Minister of Fisheries, federally, maintains jurisdiction. We went over some of that in the earlier chapters.

How does that happen? Well, through conventional enforcement mechanisms. In this case, there's an additional joint management committee that provides for ongoing contact between the parties. The joint fisheries committee has specific authority vested to it under the agreement to discuss and make recommendations.

Well in advance of formal enforcement proceedings, there are mechanisms laid out in this agreement that would, hopefully, be sufficient to head off the kind of calamity that the member described. I don't quarrel with him. The habitat is important. It is a key part of the Fraser River ecosystem, and that's why the provisions that are in the agreement exist.

G. Gentner: I'm not going to question the astounding and remarkable career this minister has had on the side of the environment. I mean, that record certainly is there for anybody to see. Hon. Chair, we can talk about the ministry of Fisheries, which is federal, but we have a provincial Ministry of Environment that deals with many of these issues — the interface, so to speak, between the intertidal zone and the nourishment and the nutrients that come from the land base, which is traditionally a resource of the province.

I guess I'm going to have to close this line of questioning, because I think, unfortunately, that I'm not going to get the answer I'm seeking. Perhaps, in part, that's because of me not making myself clear enough for the minister.

Just one other note on the matter before we move on, I guess, maybe to another chapter. Quickly, the member for Vancouver-Hastings had talked briefly about the relationship with the Vancouver Port Authority relative to the environment, potential spills and similar protocols.

There are protocols currently with the Vancouver Port Authority and with Delta on some of these lands that are being transferred. One is called the barn owl management team, and I'm wondering if that is going to remain. Or what is the commitment, through this treaty process, to adhere to that committee and sustaining it throughout?

Hon. M. de Jong: Was the member's question: what is the relationship between the treaty and, or the impact of the treaty on, the barn owl society? Is that the question?

G. Gentner: I didn't realize that owls would stir the House the way they did. Perhaps if the member wants….

G. Gentner: The question was…. I wanted to know whether or not the relationship that currently exists with the Vancouver Port Authority and the corporation of Delta and all players in that area will continue, through this treaty. These protocols…. They may be somewhat NGO. They're not necessarily completely Ministry of Environment, but it is with the Vancouver Port Authority, which is of course a Crown corp. Will these protocols, such as the barn owl management team, continue to exist?

Hon. M. de Jong: I am not aware of anything in this final agreement or the attached legislation that would impact on the relationship or the society or committee that the member has referenced.

G. Gentner: I can understand that, because once the land is turned over and we see the asphalt laid all across the beautiful farmland in this province, particularly here, the barn owl will be extirpated. It will no longer exist. I think that's a shame, because that type of raptor habitat is diminishing, and it's no longer going to exist on the floodplain of the Fraser River.

I have no other questions on the protection of wildlife and vegetation part, which needs management. I don't think there is a commitment in this treaty for that. I really believe this is a government that obviously doesn't really care that much about it. I'll move on to the next chapter.

S. Fraser: At this point, we are ready to move on to chapter 16, "Governance."

I probed this a little bit earlier. In September the UN passed a declaration on the rights of indigenous people, and it specifically refers to governance issues in the bill, which was adopted. It was 144 yes votes and four no votes. Unfortunately, Canada was one of the no votes.

The rationale that was given by Canada at the United Nations for a no vote was that our areas of greatest concern relate to the portions of the text having to do with lands and resources; free, prior and informed consent; self-government or autonomy; intellectual property; military issues; and the balance between rights and obligations of indigenous peoples, member states and third parties.

I note that this government did not take a position. They stayed silent through that no-vote process. I've heard this contested, Canada's stated problem with the UN declaration. According to a letter to the UN General Assembly from the human rights organizations, it says:

I've asked this before, and I didn't really get an answer. Self-governance. This chapter deals with governance, self-governance in this case, yet this government did not support the UN declaration. The minister cited some wording problems. What wording problems would the UN declaration have, if any, that would have affected the self-governance sections of this treaty or other treaties?

Hon. M. de Jong: I should state clearly to the member that our engagement in these negotiations and our willingness and desire to move ahead with this ratification did not involve an analysis that laid these provisions next to any other international document or presumed international document.

Because we are dealing with an important provision here, I don't want to take the conversation down a road dealing with a matter that was before the United Nations — an important matter. The member says that I didn't respond. Actually, he knows that's not true, because I think I was asked in this House. He knows — or if he doesn't, I'll remind him — what the response was.

I was disappointed. The government was disappointed that the agency that represents Canada internationally, which is the federal government, was not, for whatever reason, able to settle on language with the other members of the United Nations that would give them the comfort they felt they required to lend their voice in support of that declaration.

I think it has huge symbolic value and importance to first nations — not just first nations; aboriginal peoples right across the country. I think it is worth pursuing the matter. I think it is worth endeavouring to determine whether a mechanism can yet exist for it to happen. But it is not a relevant part of the discussion that we are undertaking around this treaty and, specifically, chapter 16 of this treaty.

S. Fraser: I respectfully disagree. This chapter deals with self-governance. This is a tripartite agreement between Tsawwassen First Nation, the province and the government of Canada. The government of Canada said no — four countries out of 144 yes votes; four, no. One is Canada, and they say that one of the stated reasons they said no to the UN declaration was self-governance issues.

We have a self-governance chapter that we're dealing with here. One-third of the tripartite agreement refused to sign an international declaration, stating reasons that it would affect self-governance. I want to know if the minister is aware of which part of that declaration, which Canada did not sign, dealing with self-governance would have caused a problem for the Tsawwassen treaty.

I would dare to say that Chief Baird was as appalled as every first nation in this province that Canada did not sign on and that this government remained silent through it. They never urged the province. We asked you publicly to make a statement on that. We're

at a point now where Canada didn't sign onto the UN declaration, one of the stated reasons being self-governance issues.

Is there an issue here? Would the UN declaration have infringed on chapter 16 in any way? Would it have caused a problem in any way? Maybe not for the province, because we remain silent…. I don't know. But the federal government obviously has a problem with this, and it's got to relate to treaty, because it's self-governance.

We're in a treaty, chapter 16, self-governance. The stated reason for not signing is self-governance issues, by one-third of the tripartite agreement. Where in 16 would the UN declaration have caused a problem?

Hon. M. de Jong: I take very seriously my responsibility to speak on behalf of the government of British Columbia. Therefore, I hope the member will excuse me if I don't unilaterally take on the responsibility for speaking on behalf of the government of Canada. I don't intend to do that.

The member has a question about why it is that the government of Canada adopted a course of action that he disagrees with. I've already told him that I too was disappointed by what took place. But I'm not going to speak for the federal government. I'm not going to try and interpret what may have motivated them to adopt a course of action.

I am interested to know whether or not this member and this House and this committee agree or have questions about the model of self-government that is introduced and given life in this agreement.

Let's do that. Let's explore. If the member has an assertion to make that he believes provisions of this chapter contravene some convention or international obligation that Canada or British Columbia is a party to, then I am interested in hearing that as well. But I am not going to stand here in this House and purport to speculate on a decision made by the federal government, which I have no responsibility and no constitutional authority for. I have already told the member that the outcome disappointed me and that I am hopeful action can be taken.

But we are here to deal with the provisions of this agreement that would give life to self-government, which would free the Tsawwassen from the constraints of the Indian Act. I am interested in debating what the member believes the shortcomings of this chapter might be and whether it properly addresses the aspirations of the Tsawwassen First Nation within the constitutional context of Canadian law.

S. Fraser: That's fair enough. But I think it's an evasion. We've had to ask questions, as you know, and you've had to answer on behalf of the federal government on issues — say, fisheries issues, federal issues. We don't have the benefit of one-third of the tripartite agreement here. Yet you offered to take positions on fisheries that no doubt were really within the realm of the federal government and DFO. They would have had responsibilities there — as we've just dealt with — with federal parks.

There was no such problem dealing with federal issues or taking a position, because you are representing the only avenue we have for asking questions about the tripartite agreement. Whether or not the feds are sitting here, you've answered questions that were of the federal realm, and now you're not on this issue. I think that's evasive.

Disappointment after the fact with the UN declaration…. When you were asked, when this government was asked time and again to take a strong position in support of the declaration on the rights of indigenous people, you did not. You stayed silent. So disappointment after the fact? Yeah, well, I'm disappointed too. I'm disappointed that this government did nothing and sat silent throughout that process. That's shameful.

C. Wyse: So that the minister can get an idea of where I'm coming from, my question will cover section 114 through to and including section 136. Those are the items on emergency preparedness through to and including the end of penalties. Giving a moment for the minister to get an idea of where I am, my question to the minister is….

I am looking for assurances that those sections that I've outlined to you are simply the empowerment of the ability and responsibilities that local government would have. If there are any dissimilarities, I would ask the minister to explain where they are not similar, should there be anything amongst those sections.

Hon. M. de Jong: I am advised, insofar as emergency preparedness is concerned, that the provisions mirror what would exist for local authorities. In fact, the Tsawwassen First Nation is, I think, designated as a local authority for the purposes of the relevant provincial legislation.

C. Wyse: I guess I was being too encompassing, because my question actually would be the same for the regulation of business; the buildings and structures; the public works; the traffic, parking, transportation and highways; the public order, peace and safety; and penalties. It's the same question that covers section 114 all the way through to 136.

If I get the same answer and assurances, then I have no further questions. If there are any dissimilarities amongst those sections, I'm simply asking to be told what the differences would be.

Hon. M. de Jong: I can advise the member that on balance, the authority is similar. I am aware of one specific difference, however, as it relates to the regulation of business. A local authority in British Columbia does not, under the relevant provincial legislation, have the authority to prohibit a business. That power does exist for the Tsawwassen First Nation under these provisions.

C. Wyse: To the minister: I thank him for his responses. I once more reflect back upon the same answer that was given yesterday when I asked questions around section 7 — that there are some similarities that exist here where there is a parallel between local government and so on.

With that, should anything else come across to the minister — something that his staff discovers amongst those items, where there would be other differences — I request that the minister advise me in some type of fashion in the House. With that, I finish my questioning.

B. Lekstrom: Just a couple of questions on chapter 16, "Governance." This is one that I spoke about at second reading, and I certainly don't have a great deal of questions here. I think I've expressed the view quite clearly that I'm a supporter of delegated-style government versus self-government provisions.

A couple of technical questions. Under section 8.h: "Tsawwassen First Nation will have a Constitution, consistent with this Agreement, which will provide…h. for conflict of interest rules comparable to those generally accepted for governments of similar size in Canada."

Can the minister maybe enlighten…? I'm not sure I'm aware of a government of 358 people in Canada. So how would that comparison be?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think what's contemplated here is conflict regulations that would be comparable to what exist for municipalities. They used to be in the Municipal Act, and I think they're now contained within the Community Charter. It would be similar provisions. We have some small communities in the province for which they are equally applicable. This would be one of them.

B. Lekstrom: Certainly, if they're similar that way…. I represent some small communities in the northeast part of the province and have worked with the FOI Act for some time.

One more question on this section, and then I will let others ask questions. Section 45 of the chapter says: "Tsawwassen Government will make laws to: a. provide Tsawwassen Members with reasonable access to information in the custody or control of a Tsawwassen Institution" — which is very clear to me — "and b. provide Persons other than Tsawwassen Members with reasonable access to information in the custody or control of a Tsawwassen Institution regarding matters that directly and significantly affect those Persons."

It seems to me that this law that Tsawwassen government could make is going to differentiate between a member and a non-member. Certainly under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which we operate under in British Columbia, there is no delineation like this.

I just seek clarification from the minister as to why the difference for a member versus a non-member.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think there are two things about the section that the member has zeroed in on. One is that whilst there is, was and remains a desire on the part of the parties to confirm that the Tsawwassen First Nation government needs to operate in a transparent manner, there was also a recognition that to impose an absolute requirement that it operate under the provisions of FOIPPA at this stage in its evolution might impose a burden that was a bit unworkable for the government.

The provincial legislation does not presently cover first nations. Constitutionally that's the case, and yet there was a desire to enshrine in the agreement recognition that there needs to be a transparency here.

However, the second point that the member raises is the differentiation. There is, because there was also a desire to give effect to the notion that there may be certain matters, certain information — I'm thinking about cultural matters — for which a different standard might apply, depending on whether or not an individual is a member of the Tsawwassen First Nation.

So the member is correct. There is the possibility, in developing these transparency provisions, of a slight differentiation between those two in those circumstances.

D. MacKay: I'm going to deal specifically with sections 85 and 88 of chapter 16. For the record, section 85 says: "Tsawwassen Government may make laws in respect of the authorization of individuals to practise as aboriginal healers on Tsawwassen Lands."

Section 88 states: "A Tsawwassen Law made under clause 85" — which I just read — "prevails to the extent of a Conflict with a Federal or Provincial Law."

My question has to do with the practice of medicine by an aboriginal healer on Tsawwassen land. The question is quite simple. Who's going to pay for that — MSP premiums? Is the federal government going to pay for that, or is the province or the taxpayer going to pay for an aboriginal healer on Tsawwassen lands?

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for the question. The section, whilst recognizing the notion of an aboriginal healer, triggers no obligation to pay.

I'd like to now move on to section 103 of chapter 16 dealing with "the exclusive right to sell liquor on Tsawwassen Lands in accordance with Federal and Provincial Law." I'm going to try to go about this in a way that I'll just have to ask it once. I've asked the question previously, and I don't believe I got an answer to it.

I understand the Tsawwassen people will have to get authority from the province in order to open an establishment on the Tsawwassen lands to sell liquor, and they're going to have to travel to the liquor distribution branch to purchase the liquor if, in fact, they do get the authority from the province. I can't see the province withholding the right to sell liquor on Tsawwassen lands. They're going to have to travel to a liquor distribution point to pick up the liquor. They're going to pick up the liquor and return it to the reserve to sell it in the establishment.

By section 87 of the Indian Act and, by extension, this Tsawwassen treaty, we have extended the tax-free exemption for natives living on Tsawwassen lands for another eight years. When and if a liquor store is opened on Tsawwassen lands and a native goes into that liquor store to purchase liquor, he is exempt under this treaty from paying sales tax. As we know, taxes make up the majority of the cost of the bottle of liquor or the case of beer — whatever he may decide to buy.

My question is: will he or she be exempt from paying taxes for that liquor on Tsawwassen lands? I guess that's the question.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think I have a definitive answer for the member. We're talking now about the transition period. The member has correctly pointed out that after eight years, under the terms of this agreement, relevant provincial sales taxes would apply. The question also presupposes the establishment on Tsawwassen treaty settlement lands of a liquor retailer.

Were that to occur — if the decision were made to allow for that to happen and were it to happen over the course of the next eight years, for that period until that exemption is removed or expires under the terms of this agreement — a member of the Tsawwassen First Nation who sought to purchase a liquor product from that liquor retailer located on treaty settlement lands would not be obliged to pay the provincial sales tax.

D. MacKay: Is the PST the only tax that he would be exempt from paying? I'm going to give you an example of why I ask the question. I don't think it's any secret that automobile dealers who sell cars today to natives will usually deliver the car to a reserve to avoid the native paying any tax at all for an automobile.

In my own case, when I bought my last vehicle, I could have saved $9,000 had I been an aboriginal person, because of the taxes that I had to pay. That could have been delivered to a reserve, and the individual could have saved $9,000. However, I had to pay $9,000, so this is interesting to me.

There's more than PST. There's GST. There has got to be an excise tax in there. So is the PST the only tax that will be exempt from being paid on the purchase of liquor on a reserve by somebody living on Tsawwassen lands off a retail outlet?

Hon. M. de Jong: I confess I'm not an authority on what the applicable taxes are on a case of beer or a bottle of rye. I think I should be clear, though, that for the transition period, the tax exemptions that have historically applied will continue to apply.

I can try to get for the hon. member a breakdown of what, on a typical purchase, that would involve. Suffice it to say, though, that the exemptions that have existed would, in the scenario we've described, continue through the transition period for the eight-year period.

D. MacKay: I take it from that conversation that the minister's not sure about the federal taxes that are attached to a bottle of liquor, because there's excise tax…. There's got to be other taxes in there besides provincial sales tax, which is 7 percent.

That begs the question: when the liquor is purchased from the liquor distribution branch, will they be exempt from paying the PST at the liquor distribution branch, or will, in fact, the liquor be delivered to the reserve or to the Tsawwassen lands to avoid having to pay the PST?

Hon. M. de Jong: In answer to the member's question, which I think related to the Tsawwassen First Nation member operating that liquor retailer on Tsawwassen settlement lands, they would go to the liquor distribution branch, as any other retailer in the province would, and pay the same price.

I'm told they don't actually pay the provincial sales tax there, so they would pay the same price. The difference through the transition period, I'm advised, would be in the case of a customer who is a Tsawwassen First Nation member. They would not be charged the provincial sales tax at the point-of-sale back on the treaty settlement lands at the retail outlet.

D. MacKay: I'm sorry to belabour this, but I'm still confused. If I have the licence to purchase the liquor from the liquor distribution branch, am I not paying the PST when I pick the liquor up?

Mr. Chair, I have one final question for the whole rest of the treaty here, and that has to do with the enforcement of Tsawwassen laws.

In section 137 it talks about how the Tsawwassen First Nation is responsible for any enforcement of Tsawwassen law. That begs the question: who pays for the enforcement of the laws that they will develop over time? Who's going to pay for the enforcement provisions of that?

Hon. M. de Jong: No, all this section does is provide an option to a first nation government that says if you want to forgo the need to draft something on your own, you can adopt wording or a law from another jurisdiction and adopt it. It then becomes a Tsawwassen First Nation law. It does not trigger any additional entitlements to any additional funding.

D. MacKay: I'm sorry. There has to be an enforcement body to look after the laws, because they're also

going to be subject to criminal law and provincial law as well as the Tsawwassen laws.

Somebody is going to have to enforce those laws on the Tsawwassen treaty lands. Who is going to be responsible for the enforcement of the provincial, federal and treaty laws that will follow?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think we have to read 137 and 138 together. So 137 creates the option where the Tsawwassen First Nation has drawn down on a power, or wishes to do so, by adopting a federal or provincial law. But it then becomes a Tsawwassen First Nation law, and the responsibility for the costs associated with the enforcement of that law still vests with the Tsawwassen First Nation government. They cannot divest themselves of that responsibility simply by adopting statutes from other jurisdictions.

D. MacKay: To the minister: I'm sorry. I don't think I'm explaining it well enough. There's going to be a cost associated to the enforcement side of these laws. Is it the RCMP that are going to be responsible, and if so, how are the Tsawwassen people going to pay for the enforcement provisions of these laws? Somebody is going to have to pay for it.

Are they going to pay for it through a taxation provision? And is it going to be similar to what we do with the rest of the province with populations under 5,000? In the Solicitor General's recent announcement for collection of revenues to help offset policing costs, populations under 5,000 are all going to be contributing to policing costs.

I guess what I'm after is: what provisions or what sort of process is going to be in place for the collection of taxes to pay for policing costs if outside resources are used for those costs? I hope I explained it well enough that time.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think so. I think the overall question about where the resources are going to come from, where the Tsawwassen have responsibilities to absorb the cost, is something we will explore when we talk about fiscal financing arrangements. Suffice to say, there are those arrangements in place.

There are areas where the Tsawwassen will have responsibility and will be responsible for absorbing those costs. That doesn't, as we've discussed in the past, preclude them from entering into other programs that might be available, as other communities do, to defray some of those costs.

It is interesting. In the example that the member made, the Tsawwassen agreement does not provide the Tsawwassen First Nation with the authority or the power to create a police force, for example. So there will be an agreement entered into around policing. Enforcement within the meaning of this section, though — the section that we're talking about — extends well beyond policing. It cuts across a wide swath of laws and regulations.

D. MacKay: Just to go on the record. We now have another community. I'm not sure what it's called, but we have a community with self-government. Then we have a lot of small communities throughout the province of British Columbia that are under 5,000 in population and are paying for policing costs through their property tax.

What I was trying to get at is…. I assume from your answer that they are going to have to come up with some funding formula to help offset policing costs, as do other small communities throughout the province of B.C.

Hon. M. de Jong: Yes, I'm reminded that there is an arrangement in place now with Delta, and it does provide for a form of cost-sharing. That is part of an ongoing discussion through the master agreement. In the future, I think the communities will look at sharing the costs, but they will be responsible for contributing a portion of that cost. That is certainly the case.

G. Gentner: Just quickly on the policing side. The rules will be conducted through the provincial Police Act, I believe — whatever happens here?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think this is the answer to the member's question. The agreement, as the member knows, says: "Nothing in this Agreement prevents Tsawwassen First Nation from establishing a police force under Provincial Law." If they were to act on that power — although I want to emphasize that my understanding is that the relationship with the corporation of Delta is one that is intended to continue — the provincial Police Act would apply.

G. Gentner: Some of the policing is shared. My understanding is there's a freeway or highway patrol — that's the RCMP — that conducts activity along Highway 17. Will that continue through the Tsawwassen lands, or will that be done by a different police force?

Hon. M. de Jong: It is anticipated that highway enforcement along the 17 corridor will continue as it presently exists, and nothing that I am aware of in this agreement precludes or prevents that from happening.

G. Gentner: I haven't seen in the treaty…. Maybe you can guide me through it.

I read briefly about corrections, but sheriff services…. How will that play out in the treaty? Maybe the minister can guide me to that part.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the member's question was around sheriff services — part of the delivery of court services in the province. Unlike the Nisga'a treaty, which does reference justice matters and court-related matters, this doesn't. Therefore, there would be no change in service. It would continue to be provided by the province through the conventional mechanisms.

G. Gentner: So there are no restrictions from the sheriff department to go onto TFN land at any time with no consultation. Do I have that correct?

Hon. M. de Jong: That authority to carry out duties remains unimpeded. The authority within the agreement for that proposition is contained at page 56, section 27 of chapter 7.

G. Gentner: Education — I see there are going to be some changes here. It looks very positive. Just so I have an understanding, I want to know what the differences are.

Could the minister explain to me what the situation is today relative to educational services — not post-secondary, but grade school and high school opportunities?

Hon. M. de Jong: My understanding of the present arrangement is as follows. There is a preschool located on the present-day reserve. Beyond that, the Tsawwassen First Nation children go to school in Delta pursuant to an arrangement that exists. In those circumstances, funding — pursuant to the federal Indian Act — flows to the Tsawwassen band, who then have entered into an agreement with the school board for the payment of services relating to the students that do attend school in Delta.

G. Gentner: I want to be correct on how it works now. Within the band and without — non-aboriginals who live in the area…. The money is received and is transferred to the Delta school board for educational services. Correct?

How about non-aboriginals on the reserve? How is the school conducted, and what play does the TFN have?

Hon. M. de Jong: My understanding is that for a non–Tsawwassen First Nation member, non-aboriginal, that student would go to school and funding would flow directly from the provincial government pursuant to the usual funding arrangements.

G. Gentner: The area called Stahaken is primarily made up of non-aboriginal children. There is no transfer of funding vis-à-vis through the TFN to the school board.

G. Gentner: Currently does the minister know how much the TFN is in arrears for payments not paid to the Delta school board?

G. Gentner: In the event that there are moneys that are owed or accrued to the Delta school board, how will those moneys be somewhat guaranteed to the school board?

Hon. M. de Jong: Insofar as the present circumstances are concerned, there is, as I understand it, an agreement between the Tsawwassen band and the school board. I'm not familiar with the enforcement mechanisms, so I'm not well placed to answer the member's questions about what remedies presently exist in the event that there are arrears.

G. Gentner: Therefore, you don't know how it is today. How is it going to be tomorrow upon ratification?

Again, the funding for non-aboriginal children who live on the lands. They're funded through a tax structure, if I have it correct, like property taxes, or cash in lieu of, which will go to the Tsawwassen First Nation, and then the Tsawwassen First Nation will take a portion of that money and, through an agreement with the Delta school board, will transfer that funding to the board. Is that correct?

Hon. M. de Jong: So now we're talking about post–effective date once the terms of the condition…. The member's question, as I recall it, related specifically to non-aboriginal children, non-members of the Tsawwassen First Nation. In that circumstance, if a student — irrespective of where they live; whether they live on Tsawwassen settlement lands or elsewhere in the province — shows up at a public school, that triggers for that school board a funding entitlement from the Ministry of Education, and that funding would flow from the provincial government, as it does today, to the school board that is administering that school.

The Chair: The Chair will be calling a five-minute recess health break, and we'll reconvene in five minutes — five after five.

G. Gentner: I thought I left the question here, but I guess I didn't. Then the health break came in and all the rest of it.

Okay, we left off discussing the funding formula, how it's going to work amongst the Delta school board and, of course, the TFN and the non-aboriginal children. My question is this: will the parents of the non-aboriginal children be able to vote for the Delta school board, if their kids are going there and the funding is finding its way there?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the answer is no, and I'm looking to verify that. I don't want to hold us up in the proceedings.

G. Gentner: Well, I know the minister doesn't want to hold up the proceedings, but this is a fundamental

issue, I think — taxation with representation. The parents of the children who are going to school in the Delta school district — and this is the public school system, not a private one — in any other instance, I believe, have a right to vote for their school board in order to ensure that they get the education that they're paying for.

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm not trying to avoid or diminish the import of the issue. That's why I proffered an initial position, so the member had something to deal with.

My answer is based, in part, on our knowledge of what is in the treaty, but it is also based on the fact that one's entitlement…. My recollection, as a former school board member, is that one's ability to vote for those positions is conditional on living within the defined jurisdiction that the school board governs.

For example, someone living in Surrey who had a cross-boundary permit for a child going to school in Langley would not be entitled to vote for the Langley school board. That's my rationale in offering the opinion. And yes, I think it is important enough an issue for me to be able to confirm that for the member.

G. Gentner: I don't disagree with the rationale. I mean, I have cross-border…. I just wanted it for the record.

The other question I have on education is, and then I'll move off: can a parent within the Tsawwassen First Nation who has a child in the Delta school system sit on the parent advisory committee?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the answer to that is yes. I'm not aware of any impediment, for any parent whose child attends a school, to sitting on the parent advisory committee for that school.

G. Gentner: Just quickly again, on the non-aboriginal status, the situation there. I have many people coming into my office worried. In particular, those at Tsatsu Shores have a lease agreement, I suppose, with the first nation. I have many people from south Delta coming up to me, talking about many things. I guess it's for my many years' experience in the community.

They were very much worried about their voice on the tribal council. I know they have consultation with the tribal council. I can't find it here. Can the minister explain to me how that consultative process with the tribal council will work for non-aboriginals who live on the reserve?

Hon. M. de Jong: I gave the member and the committee incorrect information on a pretty key issue. In fact, in the scenario the member described, where a non-member of the Tsawwassen First Nation is resident on Tsawwassen settlement lands and is sending their child to school in the school district of Delta, they would qualify and be entitled to vote in Delta school board elections by virtue of the fact that now the Tsawwassen area is deemed to be part of the school board. That will continue post-treaty.

So, in fact, the family that we were talking about would qualify, I am advised, to vote in the Delta school board elections.

I want to go back to the other question I asked about the consultative process between non-aboriginals who live on the lands and how that consultative process works with the Tsawwassen Tribal Council.

Hon. M. de Jong: I am referencing sections 17, 18, 19 through to 21 in this chapter 16 as describing the circumstances and extent to which there would be participation in Tsawwassen public institutions by non-members, and the various circumstances are laid out there. There is, additionally, provision for participation by non-members when we come to some of the taxation authorities later in the final agreement.

G. Gentner: I'm familiar with those sections. My concern is that I haven't…. Maybe I'll want to talk more when we get there. I know time will be running out.

My understanding is that there is an appeal process involved with any decisions a tribal council makes that affect non-members. I just couldn't find it. Could the minister instruct me as to where I could find that?

Hon. M. de Jong: I can refer the hon. member to sections 13, 14, 15 and 22 in this chapter 16.

C. Wyse: Earlier, when I asked a question of the minister dealing with sections 14 through 136, I asked for assurances that the minister would get back to me if there were any differences.

My recollection was that I got a very friendly smile from a handsome individual, and a nod or two, but with my inexperience, I'm not certain that that answer appears on the record. So I'm just seeking confirmation that that was a yes to that question.

Hon. M. de Jong: In referencing the handsome individual, I fear the member is purposely misleading the House.

Maybe what I'd like to do is go a little further than that. I can't do it now, but I think I understand the essence of the member's question. Why don't we arrange a time next week at some point? The member can come in — and one of the officials — and we can take a bit of time to go through that specific provision. I'm worried that my definition of a significant difference might be different than the member's definition of a significant difference, and I don't want to withhold any of that sort of information.

In general, I've alerted him to the one area relating to the prohibition of businesses. I'm not aware of anything else that would fall into that category. Maybe

the member and I can touch base next week and, if it's necessary, arrange a briefing. Otherwise, I'll confirm it in detail for him so there's no doubt.

C. Wyse: I just wanted our conversation to be on record. I fully accept the intent that if anything dissimilar of a major nature does turn up, that information will be passed on.

With that, it would conclude any questions that I would have with regards to chapter 16.

C. Wyse: Again in my style, I would like to take just a minute or two to give the minister an idea of where I will be going with my questioning. I will have some questions, likely in three broad groupings, and then I will come back.

My preamble, to assist the minister, is that this is our first urban treaty. I will have some questions for the minister in which I will clarify my understanding that we are setting up an interrelationship between the Tsawwassen First Nation and their existing neighbouring communities. Once I have clarification on that, I will then be seeking some clarification from the minister on how the interaction may develop, as per my understanding of section 17, and as to where these neighbours, if you like, will be able to proceed in the future.

Given that part, for the minister's guidance my first question deals with sections 1 through 9, in which I am just seeking general assurances that underneath those sections the Tsawwassen First Nation is, in essence, being defined in a capacity that allows them to function within the existing local governance structure of the GVRD.

Hon. M. de Jong: Yes, I think the member is correct. These are the provisions that will ensure that the Tsawwassen First Nation can function as a first nation member of the GVRD.

C. Wyse: I appreciate the answer being in a form which I was able to follow. I'm not a lawyer, and things of that nature.

However, I'm now directing you specifically to section 5. There is a review clause contained in section 5 where after a period of time — ten years or at another time — the relationship between the Tsawwassen First Nation and the GVRD may be re-examined and changed.

My question is: what is the rationale for number 5 being there, given that, to my understanding, this option doesn't exist for any other local governments that belong to the GVRD?

Hon. M. de Jong: The section represents a recognition of the fact that this is something of a first. It's the first, first nation to become a partner within the GVRD. As that relationship evolves — and there's some work to be done in terms of defining some of the parameters and specifics — the Tsawwassen were interested in ensuring that there was a mechanism recognized by which the relationship could be reviewed.

I do want to point this out. The word "review" should not be read as being synonymous with creating an option to withdraw. The membership is intended to continue, but there is a recognition of the interests and the desire that the Tsawwassen had to ensure that there could be a review around the nature of the relationship.

C. Wyse: I had mentioned earlier — not in this stage but earlier in discussions at second stage — how significant it is and how proud I am to be part of the passing of this particular bill. But it does raise some other questions around number 5 when we talk about a review.

There is a responsibility that exists with the TFN and their relationship with other local governments and how it will go on in perpetuity, because they are going to be neighbours for a very long time. So number 5 and the review are significant. In my judgment, with this being the first treaty, it's very significant that there be an understanding.

My question is: may I interpret the answer that was given here on behalf of the GVRD as an entity that with this membership having joined them, they will be remaining with that particular body?

Hon. M. de Jong: I never purport to try to answer on behalf of other agencies, but I can tell the member this. Both the Tsawwassen and the GVRD were interested in ensuring that this provision was here, but as well, it is intended that the Tsawwassen First Nation will remain a permanent member of the GVRD.

C. Wyse: Again, I thank the minister for an answer that I'm able to follow and track.

Moving on to numbers 6 and 7, it may be simply a typing error, but the word "Consult" is capitalized.

In past practice the government's commitment to consult with other local governments before any major changes were made may be questioned, and is questioned, by a number of local governments — where, in actual fact, consultation was made.

My question to the minister: is this a typing error, or is this a new way of the government introducing the word "consult," when they mean that they're actually going to sit down and talk and advise ahead of time before the changes are made?

Hon. M. de Jong: Can I ask the member, before I respond: is his interest in the word "Consult" restricted to section 6 or 7 or both?

It is purposeful. The capitalization on the word "Consult" is intended to denote that it is a defined term in chapter 1 of the agreement. "Consult" is actually

defined. I can read it into the record, but the member probably has access to it.

It refers to a process whereby a party would provide "a. notice of a matter to be decided; b. sufficient information in respect of the matter to permit the party to prepare its views on the matter; c. a reasonable period of time to permit the party to prepare its views on the matter; d. an opportunity for the party to present its views on the matter; and e. a full and fair consideration of any views on the matter so presented by the party."

I think that's the second time I've read that definition into the record, but it does relate to the term "Consult" — capital "C" — which is a defined term within the agreement.

C. Wyse: My apologies if in actual fact it is the second time the minister read it, but I would acknowledge that when he read it the second time, he did a very good job on it, and I'm appreciative of that.

Now, moving on to sections 10 through 18. My first question in sections 10 through 18 would be looking for confirmation that, in essence, those sections simply are setting up the conditions for the provision of services and the various authorities and how they would unfold. I'm simply looking at whether that's the intent of those sections — 10 through 18.

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, yes, generally that is the case, but they are chock full of exciting provisions that relate to specific circumstances and specific services. But yes, generally that is the case.

C. Wyse: I will just draw attention to number 16 in particular at this time. I'm just attempting to draw to the minister's attention that I will have some questions at the end of this in wanting to get an explanation on the tone and the provincial process that may be used for the interaction that will take place between the Tsawwassen First Nation and the GVRD.

I appreciate the answer that I've received from the minister. I'm giving him an idea of why I've been asking these questions.

My next question will move to "Land use planning," 19 through 21. Again, I'm looking for simple confirmation that those three sections are setting up the relationship between the Tsawwassen First Nation and how they will be interacting with their surrounding neighbours in the future.

Again, upon receiving confirmation that that is in actual fact what those are about, it will then lead me to have some questions at the end upon the process and the tone for how this first urban treaty will leave the interaction between the first nations community and their surrounding neighbours.

Hon. M. de Jong: Yes, I think the member has correctly characterized these provisions as guiding in a significant way the relationship and the ongoing relationship that will occur between the Tsawwassen First Nation, Tsawwassen First Nation government and adjoining jurisdictions.

C. Wyse: Having established that with the minister, I'm not going to do the same with the next grouping. But I am going to move down to section 27 and just look for affirmation that should there be no agreement, the minister becomes the absolute determining power if the parties aren't able to come together with any type of amicable negotiated settlement.

Hon. M. de Jong: I can confirm that pursuant to these provisions, it would be the minister — in this case the Minister of Community Services — that would make the final determination in the event of a lack of agreement.

C. Wyse: I believe I've established here in my questioning that there is a rationale now for having some questions on what the province did or did not do in the involvement of the surrounding local governments in arranging this part of the treaty in order to establish what the existing relationship may be in the future.

My first question to the minister is: was there any involvement with the surrounding local governments in the development of this portion of the treaty?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm going to retransmit to the committee some of the information we dealt with earlier about the extent of the meetings that took place. But suffice to say, the proof around the degree of engagement does not relate exclusively to the lead-up to where we are today in this treaty but also to the work that has been undertaken directly between, for example, the corporation of Delta and the Tsawwassen now, in advance of the effective date of the master agreement that's under negotiation — some of the service agreements that have already been negotiated.

I think one of the very positive features of what has taken place as part of this exercise is the degree to which the communities have come together. It shouldn't be lost, and I'm sure it isn't on members, that at times there were significant differences of opinion on things like settlement lands and land selection.

Yet happily, the matters having been resolved, the adjoining communities of Delta and Tsawwassen have come together now and said: "Okay, we're going to make this work. We think we've got a structure here that'll work for us, but at the end of the day it's going to depend on how we interact one to the other, how we make commonsense decisions on behalf of the people we represent. We make effective use of tax dollars for the provisions of services, and we've gone through a whole host of what they will be."

There'll be a lot of work. There's no doubt about that. We've said that a few times in these debates, commenting on just the extent and the volume of work that needs to be done — much of it in advance of effective date, which we think will be about a year from now.

So there has been involvement. There has been engagement, and I dare say that is actually ramping up. It's easy, I think, to make the mistake and conclude that because we're here dealing with the legislation, the treaty, somehow that signals an end to that. Far from it.

I think it actually triggers an amplification and an acceleration of that process, because now people are working towards a date and towards the realization that this is going to become a reality.

C. Wyse: I couldn't agree more with the point the minister is making about the large amount of work that will remain after. But the process of setting up this first treaty also involved a court challenge by Delta.

I have a copy of it here. The corporation of Delta v. Her Majesty the Queen in the right of British Columbia of December 2004, in which they raise in part the concerns about the removal of what would have been a portion of the Delta incorporated area. It would have also involved portions of land that were defined in different fashions, with the GVRD as a local level of government.

Therefore, the process of the involvement of local government is important to local government. At the Union of B.C. Municipalities they dealt with this item one more time, in which they have requested their involvement earlier in the stage of these discussions rather than later, for the very points that the minister has been making here.

That is not so much with the actual treaty that we're talking about, but in establishing where future treaties may be going, it will not contribute to a slowing down of the process. It may actually improve and speed up the process and, in doing such, increase the chances of the levels of government — defined loosely with an agreement of local governments — being able to come together and move ahead. It is with that intention that my question has been raised to the minister.

My question is: what has the province learned from this process about more directly involving local government earlier in the process of developing a treaty so that the interests as affected, the local government's existing interests, are taken into a broader consideration than possibly — and I stress possibly — may have been done in this particular process?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, I accept as valid the proposition that you can always learn. I think we have. I think we've learned a variety of things through this exercise.

On the question of involvement in some of these provisions, I want to alert the committee to and remind the committee of the fact that the GVRD was directly involved in much of this work. There were upwards of 18 meetings with them. The lower mainland treaty advisory committee, 26 meetings.

Now, those meetings would have considered a variety of…. They wouldn't all have been dedicated to this chapter, by any means, or the issues raised in this chapter. Meetings with Delta, the relationship with Delta or the concerns expressed by Delta are known to the member.

We can always learn, and I think we have and will continue to learn. We've learned from the experience on the Island with the Maa-nulth as well.

I am heartened, though, that when the legislation was introduced, as it was just over three weeks ago — I think it was three weeks ago — all of these bodies were represented. In the case of Delta, the mayor and entire council.

So whilst there were certainly differences of opinion and concerns expressed along the way, I think we have learned about some of the ways to communicate better. It doesn't mean those differences of opinion won't arise in other parts of the province as we embark upon these discussions and negotiations, but I take a great deal of comfort from the fact that the LMTAC, the GVRD and the corporation of Delta were all here, were all applauding and were all in this chamber speaking positively of the step that is being taken and positively of their desire to make this work and move ahead.

Yes, we can always learn more. Yes, there was engagement. We can learn about how to do that better in the future. Yes, there is going to be a lot of work involved implementing this agreement and making sure that it has the positive impact on the lives of the Tsawwassen First Nation and the people in the adjoining communities which we are intending it to have and hope it will have.

C. Wyse: I would like to acknowledge the time and the thoughtfulness that the minister has extended to me with his answers. I might not have quite the same optimism about how much has been learned, because I really haven't had a chance to explore in depth — that's my choice — the process that was used leading up to this.

However, I think it would be much more significant at this moment that I acknowledge the kindness the minister has extended to me, and I will defer specific questions that may have developed out of my line of questioning to my colleagues here in the House.

G. Gentner: Citing what the minister stated when the Nisga'a debate occurred, he made it very clear that the treaty was a third level of government. He seemed to be a little — I don't know — askance to it or reluctant to agree with it. I know that this party of the day took issue with it.

I do take issue with the fact that this was just kind of like a one-off. It's an urban treaty. It is a local government that has been severely impacted by this treaty, and there has been a complete lack of consultation with this government.

This government wielded a big stick. It took land away from Delta, and it did not consult. It says that it did, but Delta left the lower mainland treaty advisory committee for a reason. Under the Local Government Act or the charter, it states here that the principles for a relationship between local governments and the provincial government should be as follows. Notice and consultation is needed for provincial government actions that directly affect local interests.

"The relationship between municipalities and the Provincial government is based on the following principles: (a) the Provincial government respects municipal authority and municipalities respect Provincial authority."

Within the act: "(2)(g) the Provincial government and municipalities should attempt to resolve conflicts between them by consultation, negotiation, facilitation and other forms of dispute resolution."

Now, hon. Chair, we know that when the local government left the table…. It really wasn't a table. It was a table of observers.

A representative at that table could only report certain items to the rest of the council of the day, could not negotiate at the table per se, and would be giving advice to the province on information that was supplied to that representative.

Now, looking at a pending lawsuit — of course, I think Delta buried it — from Davis and Co. They did look at creating an action against the province, and namely, it was based on the reduction of municipal area. I know this is history, but we're going to be seeing more urban treaties, and we have to create a different road to resolve this with municipalities that are being impacted.

The procedure usually is that when you are going to reduce the size of a municipality, you go through a procedure of request and consent, electors are notified, and the action is not unilateral. What we've seen here is something that's been heavy-handed and certainly has ignored the interests not only of Delta but the GVRD, the UBCM and the lower mainland treaty advisory committee, who made it very clear they had grave issues with the way in which their local autonomy has been handled.

At the end of the day, I'm not here to debate the end result, because it is what it is. But I do want to bring issue to the fact that local governments feel as though they were manhandled with this and didn't get their day in court, so to speak. When you look at the principles as outlined by the lower mainland treaty advisory committee, and there were a lot…. It strictly asked that the local government be respected by the province. It asked for total transparency.

This is the lower mainland treaty advisory committee. I don't think those principles were adhered to. There are resolutions on land and water and resources before final agreement. There still is some uncertainty as to what that means. The lower mainland treaty advisory committee had advised that they were more interested in a settlement that looked at settlement of money as opposed to agricultural land. And that's not unusual. The building we are housed in here today was a settlement based on cash.

I think, of course, we will hopefully be able to discuss the views of the Agricultural Land Commission, but one of the major principles of the lower mainland treaty advisory committee was the adherence of the Agricultural Land Commission. I state principle 19: "Lands in the agricultural land reserve must remain in the ALR and under the jurisdiction of the Agricultural Land Commission."

That was the position of the GVRD, of every member of this lower mainland area. That didn't happen because there was no respect from this government as to the principles outlined by the lower mainland advisory committee. The same thing had to go with respect of the commercial fishery and some problems that were evolving on the status of non-aboriginal rights and representation to the tribal council.

Now, the other — I think principle 34 — concern was: what is the cost to the municipalities? What is the compensation, if you will, for municipalities that have lost land, a tax base and resources? There's nothing in this process that does so, except that the ministry, in its wisdom of what's in the best interests of the province, says that there will be prosperity and there will be certainty.

I buy some of that, but there has to be some mechanism in place where local government receives some compensation for the infrastructure they've put in, for the resources and the time and the legal implications — the costs that have been borne by, of course, the municipalities.

So my question to the minister is…. No, I think I'll wait. I'll wait until he walks out of the room, and then I'll ask the question.

G. Gentner: You know, of course, there have been numerous letters — Mayor Ralph Drew, the chair of the lower mainland treaty advisory committee — that had the deep concerns of local government regarding the provision of regional programs and services and the importance of ensuring that all benefiting communities contribute equitably to the provision.

We can look at the view from the municipality of Delta — countless letters. "The municipality, including Delta, has never really been at the negotiating table, as no municipality is a signatory to the treaty. Much of the technical land information that you are relying on in your negotiations was directly developed and provided to your negotiators by Delta at Delta's own expense."

G. Gentner: Well, we can go six weeks on this one, as far as I'm concerned. I have no problem with that. I have all the pages of the filibusters that happened in Nisga'a, Minister, you know.

G. Gentner: Chapter 17, local government, intergovernmental…. There's no real relationship, or I see nothing in the treaty that talks about the relationship of adjacent communities — in this case, the municipality of Delta — which is, of course, of grave, grave concern. Under this treaty let's quickly talk about maybe water or septic fields.

I think septic fields come under this, and we're going to look at the relationship between the municipality and the GVRD. The GVRD and the municipality have put a lot of money, and infrastructure money, into the development of septic, sewage trunk lines and water mains. Now, we know there's going to be a service agreement.

My question to the minister would be, therefore…. For the infrastructure that Delta has placed in the ground that has a certain limited capacity and will have to be upgraded with certain developments that are going to happen to the new community west, what financing or compensation will the minister guarantee the corporation of Delta to provide for the years and years of infrastructure that's in place today?

Hon. M. de Jong: I apologize. Somewhere along the line I lost track of which section within the chapter the member was dealing with.

Hon. M. de Jong: If I understand the question correctly, the answer is contained in section 24.

G. Gentner: Provision of water. "Before the Effective Date, British Columbia will ensure that the Greater Vancouver Water District will supply water on reasonable terms to Tsawwassen First Nation as a member of the Greater Vancouver Regional District, and a member of the Greater Vancouver Water District."

The question, of course, is: how will Delta and the GVRD be compensated for the trunk lines and the infrastructure that will provide water today, which have been built for many, many years?

Hon. M. de Jong: Again, if I understand the member's question correctly, then the answer would be that there are no compensatory rights. But I'm not sure I understand the member's question correctly.

G. Gentner: Could the government explain why that is — why municipal governments do not get compensated for the infrastructure that they have placed over years…? We're talking about an urban treaty. It's a precedent.

What mechanism is in place? You're saying that there is no mechanism. Therefore, I want to ask the minister why it is that this government believes that there should not be a mechanism of compensation for municipalities that have been impacted.

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, I think the answer, in part…. I try to be forthright with the member. When I explained that I may not have properly understood the question, his response was to chastise me for not answering. I can try to be clever. I won't.

There are negotiations taking place around the provision of water services, and the members and the parties to that discussion can factor in any number of things.

I sat and listened and tried to listen patiently. The member, I think, felt obliged to take advantage of the opportunity to present his impressions on the manner in which these events unfolded and this agreement emerged. That's fine. That's his right. In part, that's what this committee and this chamber are all about.

I disagree with him. I disagree profoundly. I think he has presented a purposely skewed scenario, a purposely skewed version of the events, one that matches with some of the statements he wanted to make, felt obliged to make, did make. But they bear very little resemblance with the reality of what took place.

The member doesn't want to acknowledge that 26 meetings took place with the lower mainland treaty advisory council, that 18 meetings took place with the GVRD, that Delta met countless times. The member says: "Well, the corporation of Delta withdrew from the LMTAC, and that's the government's fault." Well, they came back. Was that government's fault?

I have listened to the member. I have tried to be attentive and fair and provide answers, and I think the member feels very strongly about some of these matters.

He purports to feel very strongly about the manner in which local communities were engaged. I have a different view of the matter than he does. He chooses to ignore some of the history of what took place or to skew it in a certain direction. I guess that's his right. He's able to do that.

He says it's fundamentally flawed. He says the government ignored these communities. I say that isn't so. But he says: "You know, I believe very strongly in this, and these are matters that we should be taking account of." I suppose that's true. He's had a variety of issues that he has spoken at length about. He's asked a lot of questions, many of them very good questions.

What I have difficulty with is that when I try to reconcile the energy that he has brought to this debate, and it has been considerable, and the views he has brought and the questions that he has asked…. He has an opportunity that very few British Columbians have, that no one else — except for one person in Delta — has. If he really, really believes these things he is saying, he gets to do something that only a very few British Columbians get to do. He gets to stand up in this chamber and vote.

Remarkably, the member said in advance of this all-important historic debate that as part of some deal — don't ask me about that, because I don't know what it is — he wasn't going to do that. He wasn't going to take the next logical step, which is to stand in this chamber and say: "I believe so passionately in these issues that I am going to put my name beside a vote that people can hold me to account for."

Hon. M. de Jong: There are undoubtedly people who have been watching this debate, who have been listening to the member, who have been held with rapt attention as he made his last submission and plea in this last portion of the debate, and I'm sure some of them said: "I disagree." Some of them said: "I agree." But you know what I bet they all concluded? I'll bet they all concluded: "There is a man who has some views, and I expect he will record those views by voting for or against this treaty."

Hon. M. de Jong: I don't think any of them sat at home and said: "I wonder if he cut a deal with someone so he didn't have to do that." I don't think they're sitting at home and saying: "I wonder if, to avoid having to record a position formally on the matter, he cut a deal with someone to avoid it." Who would do such a thing?

Hon. M. de Jong: …on this historic piece of legislation with whom I have agreed, and there have been people who have spoken on this historic legislation with whom I have disagreed. But the ones I respect the most are the ones who had the courage to stand up and be held accountable for their position.

Hon. M. de Jong: I suspect I know what is in the hon. member's mind. There may yet be a section that he will ask to record a vote on, but this agreement, this legislation, this treaty is about more than one section. It is about a historic relationship that is being created between three governments.

I think it is incumbent upon all members of this House to say where they stand. But I may be wrong. We may yet have an opportunity ahead of us for the member to do something that most members take for granted, which is to record their positions on a matter. We will await that ourselves with rapt anticipation, but in the meantime we will all have an opportunity to go home to consult with our constituents. Maybe, when this member does that, he will derive some courage, derive some sense that he has the licence he needs to record his vote with respect to this historic piece of legislation.

Having said this, Madam Chair, I move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

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

Hon. M. de Jong: I wish all members a good weekend and move the House do now adjourn.

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.


	YEAS — 35

Falcon	Coell	Chong
Christensen	Les	Richmond
Bell	Krueger	Roddick
Oppal	Lee	Jarvis
Nuraney	Whittred	Cantelon
Thorpe	Hagen	de Jong
Taylor	Bond	Hansen
Abbott	Penner	Neufeld
Coleman	Sultan	Lekstrom
Polak	Hawes	Yap
Bloy	MacKay	Black
McIntyre		Rustad

	NAYS — 17

Brar	S. Simpson	Fleming
Farnworth	B. Simpson	Coons
Thorne	Gentner	Routley
Fraser	Trevena	Krog
Austin	Wyse	Sather
Macdonald		Conroy