Hansard —Wednesday, May 14, 2008 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


Statements		12407
	Deaths in Cranbrook helicopter accident
	Hon. G. Campbell
	C. James

Introductions by Members		12407

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		12409
	Fair Ferries Act, 2008 (Bill M210)
	G. Coons

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		12410
	Sullivan mine accident
	N. Macdonald
	Campaign to Control Cancer
	S. Hawkins
	Belmont Secondary School and youth climate change Arctic voyage
	J. Horgan
	Nurses in B.C.
	M. Polak
	Hyack Festival in New Westminster
	C. Puchmayr
	Asian Heritage Month
	R. Lee

Oral Questions		12412
	Government action on forest industry
	C. James
	Hon. R. Coleman
	Hon. G. Campbell
	N. Macdonald
	B. Simpson
	D. Routley
	Disclosure of documents in B.C. Rail court case
	L. Krog
	Hon. W. Oppal
	B. Ralston
	M. Farnworth
	Health care on northern Vancouver Island
	C. Trevena
	Hon. G. Abbott

Petitions		12417
	C. Wyse

Second Reading of Bills		12417
	University Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 34) (continued)
	B. Ralston
	C. Wyse
	Hon. M. Coell
	Protected Areas of British Columbia (Conservancies and Parks) Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 38)
	Hon. B. Penner
	S. Simpson
	M. Sather
	G. Coons
	Hon. B. Penner
	Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Vehicle Emissions Standards) Act (Bill 39)
	Hon. B. Penner
	S. Simpson
	Hon. K. Falcon
	M. Karagianis
	D. Chudnovsky
	Hon. B. Penner

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		12446
	Estimates: Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation
	Hon. M. de Jong
	S. Fraser
	J. Horgan
	M. Sather
	D. Routley

Hon. G. Campbell: I rise today on behalf of British Columbians to offer our sincere condolences to the friends and loved ones of the four victims of the helicopter crash yesterday in Cranbrook.

Four people perished in that incredible incident: B.C. Hydro employees Dirk Bentley Rozenboom and Robert William Lehmann, pilot Edward William Kyle Heeb and College of the Rockies student Isaiah Otieno of Kenya. Their loss will be felt by their home communities, across the province and all the way back to Kenya, I'm sure.

I know the thoughts and prayers of all British Columbians and all members of this House go out to the families and friends of those four men. Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you send our condolences to them on behalf of the House in British Columbia.

C. James: As well, I add words of condolences from the official opposition to the Premier's words to the families and to the communities. We'll be watching and are sending our condolences as well.

C. James: I have two guests to introduce, Mr. Speaker. With us here today are two former MLAs from this Legislature.

The first is Joan Sawicki, the former MLA for Burnaby-Willingdon who was Speaker of the Legislature and Minister of Environment. Dave Zirnhelt is the former MLA for Cariboo South, who was Minister of Forests, of Economic Development, of Agriculture and Fisheries, and of Aboriginal Affairs. Would the House please make these two former MLAs very welcome.

Hon. M. Coell: Earlier in the week I introduced some military police from CFB Esquimalt. They're actually here today, and I would like to introduce them: LCdr. Lucie Tremblay, who is the provost marshal of Pacific region and commanding officer of the military police at CFB Esquimalt, Sergeant Kwiatkowski, Master Corporal Jodrey, Master Corporal Donohue, Corporal Edwards and Corporal Pettinger. All are veterans of the war in Afghanistan.

They have been given the General Campaign Star for taking part in operations in the presence of an armed enemy while fighting the Taliban in that country. Some have taken part in NATO operations in the Balkans and wear medals for those missions. The MPs even initiated a Boy Scout unit in Kosovo.

Others have been given the Special Service Medal for their service in humanitarian operations in Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Central America, assisting those in dealing with natural disasters which have befallen them. They have performed regular police duties and have assisted in the training of the civilian police in Afghanistan.

All are dedicated, brave members of the Canadian Forces and deserve our gratitude for their service. It is because of people like these and others, who are willing to put themselves in harm's way, that we live in a peaceful, free and wonderful country. Would the House please make them welcome.

G. Coons: I'd like to recognize three people today who are down here for the May 14 Cancer Day of Action and their proactive push toward an interministerial cancer control strategy. Please recognize Jerry Cannon from Vancouver and Cathie Wilson from Kelowna, with a special thank-you and recognition of Sally Isaksen from Ocean Falls. It's not too often one of my constituents comes down from the north coast and the central coast, so I'd like to have a really special round of applause for Sally.

Hon. G. Abbott: I have the honour to make three sets of introductions today.

Today at noon hour, members from both sides of the House were able to gather in the rotunda to help celebrate National Nursing Week. It was our opportunity to salute and say thank you to the over 40,000 nurses in British Columbia who 365 days a year provide us with the best of care. You'll know them in the gallery because they are wearing one of these beautiful boutonnieres, just as I am. I'd like the House to make all of the nurses welcome.

As the member for North Coast noted, members are aware that yesterday evening and today individuals from the Campaign to Control Cancer are in the Legislature meeting with MLAs — a very impressive group of individuals from across British Columbia, who raise awareness, advocate for continued vigilance and also celebrate the good work of the B.C. Cancer Agency.

That's an agency that I'm sure all British Columbians are enormously proud of. The B.C. Cancer Agency has made British Columbia the best province for both cancer care and outcomes. Join me in welcoming to the Legislature in particular Dr. Islam Mohamed, a radiation oncologist from Kelowna, and Jane Akazuki from the Lower Mainland.

Finally, I also have the pleasure of introducing two individuals from the Ministry of Health. In the Legislature today are two students pursuing their doctor of pharmacy degrees. They are doing part of their rotations in pharmacy practice at the Ministry of Health to fulfil their degree requirements. Please, if all members would join in welcoming Joey Mattingly and Fong Huynh.

J. Horgan: Joining us in the gallery today is a good friend of my legislative assistant Angela Giuliano. Her name is Vida Jarman. She's from Victoria. She's a retired Hospital Employees Union worker, and she's spending her leisure time looking at us working here in the Legislature. Would you all please make her very, very welcome.

R. Sultan: We are graced in the galleries today by John and Elizabeth Burley, two friends from my riding. John started his career as a young man being commissioned as a flight officer with the RAF, and he continues to be very active in the RAF Club. He spent most of his career representing British aerospace industry interests in Moscow, and for those services he was made an officer of the Order of the British Empire by Queen Elizabeth II. Would the House please make them welcome.

C. Puchmayr: I, too, rise to acknowledge a nurse who is in the gallery today from my community regional hospital in New Westminster, Royal Columbian Hospital. Please make Sarah Hudson extremely welcome.

Hon. S. Bond: I have the pleasure, on behalf of my colleagues from Prince George, to welcome a very special nurse to the precinct today. Her name is LaDonna Fehr. LaDonna is one of the outstanding northern nurses, who works in the regional cancer unit in Prince George. She was recognized today for her significant contribution to health care in northern British Columbia. Please join me in making LaDonna feel very welcome and thank her for her work.

H. Bains: I am pleased to introduce to the House students from Brookside Elementary, grade 4 and grade 5. They are accompanied by their teachers Cindy Walker and Arlene MacDonald, and a number of parents are with them. So please join me and extend a warm welcome.

Hon. R. Neufeld: It is my pleasure today…. It's not often I get to do it. A nurse is visiting the Legislature today from Fort St. John, Barb Marsh. I'd like to say thanks to her, and I'm sure she's as excited as I am about the new hospital that will be built in Fort St. John within the next few years.

M. Farnworth: In the gallery today is a constituent of mine who also happens to be a nurse and is here for National Nursing Week. That is Roseanne Hampel. Would the House please make her most welcome.

Hon. I. Chong: I, too, would like to welcome three nurses from the Victoria area, who are here to celebrate Nursing Week as well. They are Donna Mears, who is a clinical nurse educator in medicine; Joanne Solomonson, who is executive director of Luther Court; and Pat Hillis, who is a community registered nurse. Would the House please make them welcome.

R. Fleming: With us in the gallery today is a constituent of mine who is a University of Victoria student and has just safely returned from down south, where he was a participant observer or a political tourist, if you will, in North Carolina. It's wonderful to have Ben Johnson back among us. Will the House please make him welcome.

J. McIntyre: I, too, am honoured to have this beautiful corsage, this beautiful rose, on today as a symbol of the celebration of the work that nurses do in our province each and every day.

I was hoping that the House would make one of the honourees at lunchtime particularly welcome today. Her name is Janice Snowy. She's a registered nurse, and she works at the Pemberton Health Centre in my constituency. I was hoping the House would make her feel very welcome, along with the other nurses who are here today.

K. Conroy: I, too, have a nurse here from my constituency. Cheryl Brothers is here to celebrate National Nursing Week. I'd ask all members to please join me in making her welcome.

J. Yap: We have with us in the legislative precincts 35 grade 6 students from Ecole Elémentaire Tomekichi Homma in my riding. They're here as part of their social studies and Legislative Assembly and parliamentary procedures studies with five chaperones led by Mr. Don Allison, their teacher.

Mr. Allison invited me recently to go to their class to talk about what it is like to be an MLA, and today they're here to see it in practice in Victoria in our Legislative Assembly. Would the House please join me in welcoming them.

S. Simpson: I am very pleased. We have here with us today a Chinese parents group from Hastings Elementary School, and they're here visiting for the first time in the Legislature.

We have Wai Liang Ru, Bill Yang, Kim Au, Idy Leung, Feng Qing Huang, Sandy Yu, Shirley Sung, Ann Yu, Stella Fan, Sau Kin Dong, Jenny Thong, Mai Li, Anita Li, Mona Ninh, Guan Huan Yan, Tammy Lew, Aliaa Al-Musawi and Betsy Alkenbrack. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Nuraney: In the gallery today we have my longtime friend Jim Favaro, who is accompanied by Ashifa Hulda, Caroline Mcgillivray and Fiona from the cancer clinic in Surrey. They are all here to advocate for cancer control, and I would like the House to please join me in giving them a very special welcome.

G. Gentner: In the gallery today is Donna Mears. I know the Minister of Community Services has already recognized her. She is a nurse, and she is not a constituent of mine. But I have to tell the House that she is also my landlord, and the cheques are always on time.

Hon. B. Penner: I, too, have the privilege of introducing a nurse from my constituency. His name is

Sean Young, and he practises at the Agassiz community health centre. That is a facility that opened about five years ago. While I don't attend there, my constituency assistant does, and she tells me that Mr. Young provides just excellent service. Would the House please make Mr. Young welcome.

I. Black: I'm not sure how many people are left to be introduced, but three of them are friends of mine.

I had the pleasure of having lunch today with two delightful young girls, Alysha Gillis and Adriana Corrado, who attend Hampton Park Elementary School in the Westwood Plateau region of my riding. They're accompanied by their diligent father George Gillis, who is a friend of mine. But more importantly, he coaches with me in the North Coquitlam United Soccer Club. Would the House please join me in making them feel most welcome here today.

Hon. K. Krueger: Joining us this afternoon in the chamber is a registered nurse from Kamloops, Sue Janson. Our community is very grateful to have Sue working at the Hillside Psychiatric Centre, one of many hard-working registered nurses of the Interior Health Authority. The vital role she plays in our community is very much appreciated. I'd like the House to, last but not least, make her very welcome.

L. Mayencourt: Well, not so fast, hon. Members. We do have more people to be introduced.

Nurses from Vancouver who were receiving certificates today at the 150 years of nursing in British Columbia celebration were unable to make it for the actual ceremony, but we are enormously proud of each of them for their accomplishments.

Frances MacDougall is a registered nurse responsible for surgical services at B.C.'s Children's Hospital. Connie Deugau is a registered nurse and clinical nurse educator at Providence Health Care at St. Joseph's Hospital. Then in my neighbourhood, Irene Goldstone is a registered nurse at Providence Health Care at St. Paul's Hospital, and Linda Brazier is a nursing instructor at BCIT.

Finally, I have Alison Lafond, who is a registered nurse in sub-acute medicine at Vancouver General Hospital. Would the House make all of these ladies welcome.

Finally, on behalf of my new colleagues in the ridings around Prince George, I am also very proud to introduce Suzanne Johnson. Suzanne is the vice-president of Northern Health Authority in Prince George and has been an enormous help and ally in the work that we're doing at Baldy Hughes therapeutic community.

Suzanne has been involved in therapeutic communities in other parts of Canada and, in understanding that, has helped to bring us stability by giving us a nurse clinician and a nurse practitioner and also by helping us with some of the psychiatric needs of our clients.

We are very, very proud — all four of us from Prince George — to welcome Suzanne to the precinct.

Mr. Speaker: If there are any other nurses that we failed to recognize, welcome.

G. Coons: I move introduction of the Fair Ferries Act, 2008, for first reading.

G. Coons: It gives me great pleasure today to be introducing an important piece of legislation, the Fair Ferries Act, 2008. This act amends the Coastal Ferry Act to provide ferry-dependent communities with some hope in their struggle for a safe, reliable, accountable and affordable ferry system.

The Fair Ferries Act increases the accountability of B.C. Ferries to both the government and the public. As ferry fares head skyward and ferry traffic drops below predictions, lost revenue must be made up, meaning even greater fares in the long run. This act requires that the public interest be taken into account when rates are charged.

The Fair Ferries Act will help mitigate the serious situation facing ferry users in coastal communities in British Columbia. High fares have forced residents and tourists to travel less, and they have significantly impacted the cost of all goods and services. The cost of access to essential service is becoming prohibitive for some island communities. The act requires that fares on designated routes would be set with consideration of ridership, the public good and limited options for transportation by some ferry-dependent communities.

This act rolls back the salaries of directors to a more fair and reasonable compensation and requires legislative approval of subsequent salary increases. It also brings B.C. Ferry Services Inc. and the B.C. Ferry Authority under the power of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Ombudsman Act. The act requires the authority to report annually to the minister responsible, where Members of the Legislative Assembly can scrutinize their operations.

With this act, B.C. recognizes that ferries not only should serve the public interest but should be accountable to both the government and the public. After all, B.C. Ferries is our marine highway.

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

Bill M210, Fair Ferries Act, 2008, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

N. Macdonald: It's approaching two years since Doug Erickson, Bob Newcombe, Kim Weitzel and Shawn Currier died in a small shed on the site of Kimberley's Sullivan mine. The Legislature, at the time, expressed sympathy to the families of those who died and recognized the impact of their deaths on the communities of Kimberley and Cranbrook.

On July 9 of last year a coroner's inquest was held in Kimberley to determine what happened and to make recommendations that would prevent such a tragedy in the future. The families and community wanted this, and I'm hopeful it has provided part of what the families needed. There is no question that it was a difficult process for them.

Kimberley has consistently shown how special a community it is. The people of Kimberley have looked out for the victims' families and joined them not only in grieving but also in the search for truth about what happened. The strength of the families has been truly amazing. They have been resolute and incredibly articulate.

It's important to mention the paramedics union and the Steelworkers union. They provided the legal support that allowed families to fully participate in the inquest, and they also pushed for the inquest, as did the B.C. Federation of Labour.

I want to thank the coroner's jury, the coroner and his staff, who were very professional. I also want to take this time to thank the MLA for New Westminster and the Minister of Labour for their work.

The inquest led to findings which have been put in front of this House with the expectation that they will be acted on. That has only partially happened. My commitment to the Sullivan mine families is to see that all recommendations are acted on. The people have a right to expect those who go to work to come back safely.

I know I speak for everyone here when I say that our thoughts are with the families on what will again be a very difficult day.

S. Hawkins: Today in six provinces, including B.C., the Campaign to Control Cancer is holding a national day of action to control cancer. Last evening we were welcomed by the B.C. Campaign to Control Cancer. They held a reception for members of the Legislature. Today they're meeting with all of us to share their ideas on how to achieve a shared goal, and that is "More control, less cancer."

It is a fact that we have the most favourable cancer outcomes in Canada, and we celebrate that. Women in B.C. have the lowest mortality rate and the lowest incident rate for breast and colorectal cancer in the country and the lowest overall mortality rate for cancers in Canada. B.C. men have the lowest overall mortality rate for cancers in Canada; the lowest mortality rate for prostate, colorectal and lung cancer; the lowest overall incident rates for cancer in Canada; and the lowest incident rate for lung and colorectal cancers.

In 2007 the Cancer Advocacy Coalition reported that western provinces, and B.C. in particular, have the best access to publicly funded cancer drugs. Our B.C. Cancer Agency offers a comprehensive screening mammography program free for all B.C. women aged 40 to 79.

B.C. has shown leadership in the cancer control area, and we have much to celebrate. But there is more we can do. That is why I support the Campaign to Control Cancer coming here today, sharing their knowledge, sharing their ideas and putting strategies and proposals in front of us to think about and act on if we can get there.

The Campaign to Control Cancer recognizes that there is more to do, and their goal for "More control, less cancer" is certainly achievable. We will be presented with proposals for discussion and ways to reduce the incidence of cancer and cancer deaths.

Mr. Speaker, 20,000 people a year get diagnosed and about 9,000 people die every year from cancer. By all of us working together, I think we can achieve the goal of "More control, less cancer." I, too, welcome the Campaign to Control Cancer to the Legislature today.

J. Horgan: Before the clock starts, I'd like to say how delighted I am to be following the member for Kelowna-Mission today.

Things have certainly changed since we were in school. I can remember that back in my days at Reynolds high school, an outstanding field trip was a trip to the Royal B.C. Museum. How times have changed. For one student at Belmont Secondary School from my community of Langford, the totally awesome field trip this year will be an Arctic expedition as part of the youth climate change Arctic voyage.

Students and staff at Belmont applied to the British Council Canada and were one of 15 Canadian schools accepted to participate in an amazing international adventure this coming September that will bring students, artists, scientists and educators together for a trip through the Arctic. Their route will take them from Reykjavik, Iceland, around Cape Farewell on the southern tip of Greenland and along the coast of Baffin Island to Clyde River.

They will be travelling on the motor vessel Akademik Shokalskiy, which I am told is a perfect vessel for education and entertainment. The vessel is equipped with a lecture hall, a library, a lounge, a sauna, an open bridge, kayaks and Zodiacs. It sounds like the Speaker's office, hon. Speaker.

The expedition will make almost daily stops for science and arts projects and community visits, all of this focused on the impact of climate change on the Canadian Arctic.

Belmont was the only school chosen from British Columbia — save and except Carson Graham, which

was a late entry. Their proposal was so integrated within the whole arts and science curriculum at Belmont that the British Council Canada accepted that proposal. The plan calls for Belmont students and staff to communicate its project work not only with students within Belmont but with other schools in Victoria and right across the province.

Early this summer, after several months of preparation, the expedition organizers and school staff will select from the ground crew that one student who will get to have the totally awesome Arctic adventure. The voyage will equip young Canadians for all the challenges of the Arctic and will provide them with the tools to be ambassadors for climate change.

Would the House please congratulate Belmont and that one student who will be selected to be an ambassador for climate change in British Columbia.

M. Polak: Florence Nightingale, the lady with the lamp, would have celebrated her 188th birthday had she still been alive this past Monday, May 12.

In British Columbia we're celebrating 150 years of nursing in our province, 150 years of caring that's dispensed by men and women who are far more than health professionals. The very special role played by nurses across the country is acknowledged this week during National Nursing Week.

It goes without saying that the nursing profession has undergone tremendous change since the days of Miss Nightingale. There are now more than 41,000 men and women with a practising licence in B.C. These include not only registered nurses but also nurse practitioners, licensed practical nurses and registered psychiatric nurses.

Nursing is an exciting and growing profession in British Columbia, with close to 5,000 new nurses joining the ranks since 2001 — almost 1,300 in this past year alone. The theme of Nursing Week 2008 is: "Think you know nursing? Take a closer look." It is intended to challenge our perceptions of the role of nurses in our health care system. The diverse responsibilities they take on are essential as we work to provide the best in health care for British Columbians.

But by far the most important aspect of nursing is the same today as it was in the days of Florence Nightingale. A famous news report of the day described her this way: "She is a ministering angel, without any exaggeration, in these hospitals, and as her slender form glides quietly along each corridor, every poor fellow's face softens with gratitude at the sight of her. When all the medical officers have retired for the night and silence and darkness have settled down upon those miles of prostrate sick, she may be observed alone, with a little lamp in her hand, making her solitary rounds."

I know my colleagues will join me in expressing our humble thanks for the caring and dedicated nurses who give so much of themselves each and every day.

C. Puchmayr: This Saturday is the launch of the New Westminster Hyack Festival. Hyack is a Coast Salish word meaning hurry up, so I will hyack and tell you about this longstanding tradition in my community.

Starting this Victoria Day, the Hyack Festival Association presents dozens of free events to residents and visitors alike. From tournaments of lacrosse, baseball, tennis, swimming, bowling and skateboarding to street dancing, fireworks, pizza-eating contest, antique show, amusement rides and the rapidly selling-out heritage home tour, the Hyack Festival truly has something for everyone.

This Sunday at Queen's Park Stadium, join us in the ancient and honourable Hyack anvil battery salute to Queen Victoria's birthday. This has been a tradition in New Westminster since 1860.

Two anvils are placed together centred by an ounce and a half of gunpowder and then set off with a long, hot poker. With a loud boom, the top anvil, weighing almost 200 pounds, rockets into the air as car alarms go off and neighbourhood dogs bark. This is repeated exactly 21 times.

Next Wednesday is the maypole dance and races with participants from all of New Westminster's elementary schools. This is the longest-running May dance in the Commonwealth. It dates back to 1870. On Saturday the 24th we participate in the Hyack International Parade. With 140 entrants, this is the largest international parade in British Columbia.

So on behalf of the community that I call home, I invite everyone to come and enjoy the events that all of our volunteers and community groups have put together and provided for you, and see firsthand the community spirit that has lived in my community for one year short of 150 years.

R. Lee: Asian Canadians have a long and rich history in Canada, and every May communities throughout the country celebrate Asian Heritage Month. This is an opportunity for everyone to share in the history, culture and contributions of the Asian community to our society.

While Asian Heritage Month has been celebrated in the United States for almost 30 years, it's a relatively new celebration here in Canada, starting in Toronto in 1993. Officially recognized by the government of Canada in 2002, Asian Heritage Month continues to be an important opportunity to gain people's understanding of the Asian community through music, literature, art, film, dance and lectures.

In Metro Vancouver the 12th annual explorAsian Festival celebrates Asian Heritage Month with a month-long festival of events for the whole community. Presented by the Vancouver Asian Heritage Month Society, their theme of "Many cultures, many languages, one celebration" describes not only the diversity of cultures in our society but also the diversity

in the Asian community. In the spirit of cultural harmony and community diversity, the festival promotes cross-cultural understanding.

This festival would not be possible without the hard work of the volunteers and staff of the Vancouver Asian Heritage Month Society. I would like to recognize executive director Don Montgomery, co-presidents Joy Lin Salzberg and Dr. Jan Walls, and board members Brian Sullivan, Ayah Ouziel, Mo Dhaliwal, Winnie Cheung and Sarah Kim for their efforts in organizing and coordinating the many exciting events for this year's festival.

I would like to invite all the members of this House and all British Columbians to celebrate Asian Heritage Month by taking part in one of the many events across the province this month.

C. James: On Monday the Minister of Forests said that any efforts to help B.C.'s forest workers in forest-dependent communities were just false hope. Yesterday he said that workers and the communities will have to wait until after the election. "Things will turn around," he said. "Trust me. No plan — I don't plan to do anything. Just trust me."

Well, the people of British Columbia don't trust this minister. He promised action in 2005, and he didn't deliver. Now he's making vague statements about "wait until after the election, and everything will be fine" in order to avoid taking action today. He hasn't got the job done. He's wasted years of opportunity.

My question is to the Premier. He wouldn't answer yesterday, so I'll try again today. Does the Premier have confidence in this Minister of Forests?

Hon. R. Coleman: I recognize that the member opposite doesn't actually want to read Hansard or look at the real quotes and wants to paraphrase what may be said. That's entirely her prerogative in question period, but I don't think that $129 million over three years is a small amount of money to be investing in B.C.'s forest workers today.

Hon. R. Coleman: Maybe you're opposed to $17.25 million going to tuition for displaced forest workers so they can upgrade their skills while an economic downturn is taking place. Maybe you don't believe that older forest workers should have the opportunity to be able to bridge to pension with an $85.5 million transition for an older worker fund. Maybe you don't believe that $26.25 million should go into job opportunities and communities. Maybe you don't believe in the other funds we're putting into forestry in British Columbia.

C. James: Craig Campbell of PricewaterhouseCoopers said last week that B.C. should expect more blood on the floor. He said: "There are more closures to come. There will be more job losses. There will be no recovery until at least after 2010."

That flies completely in the face of what the minister said yesterday: "Just wait until after the election." The minister keeps tripping over himself, and he refuses to admit that it's B.C. Liberal forest policies that caused the problems we're seeing today.

It was this Liberal government that broke the tie between communities and companies. It was this Liberal government that doubled raw log exports. We can't afford to wait until 2009 or 2010. We can't afford to wait until the next cabinet shuffle.

Hon. R. Coleman: …10,000 jobs lost and 38 mills closed during the tenure of the NDP in the 1990s — 10,000 jobs lost, 38 mills closed.

Hon. R. Coleman: It doesn't make it right, hon. Member. But I can tell you that when the forest changes came into place in British Columbia, record capital investment went into our industry — $3 billion over a three-year period into modernization of our mills so that we could compete with the rest of Canada and North America on a level to be able to sustain our industry in the future.

C. James: All we see from this minister is to point fingers somewhere else and then try and take credit for money that has actually come from the federal government, which has nothing to do with this government. The $129 million is federal money. In fact, the minister won't even match it. The only thing he's…

C. James: …doing is actually messing up the entire aid package. Now if workers want to get tuition, they will actually lose their EI. They're going to become ineligible for that assistance.

To get that federal money, under this government, they're bounced between the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Income Assistance and Service Canada. If they find their way through the maze, they'll lose the benefits that will actually help them pay their mortgages.

Time is running out for these workers. They're losing their benefits already. My question is again to the Premier. This minister has bungled the file from the start. Will he ask him to get out of the way?

Hon. G. Campbell: There's no one in this House that doesn't recognize the challenges that are being faced by forest families across British Columbia. There's no one in this House that doesn't understand the challenges faced in terms of communities in British Columbia that are directly dependent on forestry.

So the government has taken a number of steps to try and not just provide support for those workers but reach out to those communities and provide them with a sense of commitment, not just for the short term but for the long term. I want you to understand, Mr. Speaker, and I want the House to understand that forests have a long-term exciting future in the province of British Columbia.

This government has invested over $640 million in trying to secure the long-term future of communities that are directly impacted by the pine beetle by encouraging diversification of their economies. That supports workers in the province of British Columbia.

This government has said clearly that when the taxpayers are providing support for community development trusts, that will be supporting forest workers in British Columbia, forest communities in British Columbia, people who are retired or looking to their long-term future in British Columbia. That's what this government is committed to, and it will remain committed to that.

For those in British Columbia who are concerned about forestry jobs, they understand that every forest job in the northwest of this province would be closed down if we didn't have log exports in British Columbia. We are going to protect forest jobs in the northwestern part of this province. Go to Terrace. Go to Stewart.

Hon. G. Campbell: If the members opposite don't understand that those jobs in the northwest part of our province depend on log exports, I can tell you that there are a lot of logging families and forestry families in the northwest that are going to be disappointed.

Finally, let me say this. I understand that all of us are concerned about the forest industry in British Columbia. We have invested hundreds of millions of dollars. We will continue to invest in forest families. We will continue to invest in forest communities. We will continue to invest in the future of forestry in this province, because that is the future of British Columbia — a strong and vibrant forest industry in British Columbia.

N. Macdonald: What every single person in British Columbia knows is that this Premier and this government have destroyed the most important industry in British Columbia.

N. Macdonald: …that came to power promising to increase the number of jobs, but it is 46 mills gone and 20,000 jobs lost. It is abject failure by any standard. Step one for a recovery plan is to fire that minister.

He asked us to have a look at Hansard. So let's go back and see what he said yesterday. Yesterday in question period the Minister of Forests said — and the Premier can judge the standard of his minister — that the provincial government funded a $120 million aid package. That's not true. It is all federal money. B.C. Liberals have done nothing — zero.

The minister said yesterday that we should direct a permanently laid-off worker in Kamloops to access a tuition plan that's part of that federal money. If the worker was to find that website, which is difficult, they would be directed to Enquiry B.C. Enquiry B.C. refers them back to the website, which then refers them back to Enquiry B.C. in some endless circle. So that's the advice of the minister.

Mr. Speaker: Could the member put the question, please. Member, put the question, please.

N. Macdonald: The minister is wrong on two counts about the eligibility. So the question is this. The government has failed. That minister has failed. Step one is to fire that minister. When are you going to do it, Mr. Premier?

Hon. R. Coleman: I like the way the member quotes. I wonder if he would like to also quote that his colleagues yesterday were using a bovine compliment

towards me and suggesting that I be tasered as the Minister of Forests in this House.

Hon. R. Coleman: It's interesting how excited they get when you tell them the truth, so I'm going to tell them a bit more truth.

The truth of the matter is that yesterday I said to the media that the international forest analysts said that as we came down this downturn, B.C.'s forest industry would be one of the strongest in the world. That's the truth.

The truth of the matter is that members opposite don't want to recognize the economic downturn in the United States and don't want to recognize the housing starts. What they also don't want to recognize is a significant investment that's been made in forestry by the province of British Columbia — $642 million to the mountain pine beetle epidemic in communities. That's in community action coalitions to build an economic base for the future of forestry and opportunities in those communities and additional investment all over the province of British Columbia.

N. Macdonald: The minister wants us to feel sorry for him. The people that we are concerned about and that he is responsible for are 20,000…

If we're talking about truth, yesterday in question period the Minister of Forests very specifically said that the NDP should be referring an older worker who wanted to retire to a plan that the minister said was in place. The minister said there was a plan in place for transition to retirement.

There is no plan ready. You go to the website, and the website says that the details of the plan are still being worked out and will be available in the months to come. In three paragraphs yesterday, three paragraphs from Hansard, there were three factual errors from this minister.

It is well past time that that minister is fired. The Premier should stand up and do that today.

Hon. R. Coleman: I think the point I was trying to make is that you can call me whatever you want. I'm still going to do what's best for the forest workers in the province of British Columbia.

Hon. R. Coleman: …a little research, he'll find out that the website for all of those programs goes live tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker: Member, just take your seat. We're not continuing until there's quiet.

B. Simpson: Every day, more and more forest workers in this province are running out of their benefits. Many of them have already run out of their medical benefits. More are running out of EI. They're being forced onto income assistance.

They're in a position where their homes are threatened. They cannot pay the mortgages, and they may have to leave the towns — and many have already left the towns — that they wanted their children to grow up in. That's the reality this minister is avoiding.

I went on that website. I spent yesterday morning and today talking to people in Service Canada and talking to people in the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance. The Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance has nothing on their intranet about how to provide this service to those forest workers. Even if they did, it doesn't address the issue that they cannot pay their mortgage and cannot keep their kids in the town they wanted them to grow up in.

This minister is offering false hope. This minister is being dishonest with the people of British Columbia, as he claims that we are.

Yesterday the minister said to the Leader of the Opposition that she could direct somebody to a website, as if it was live and active. We find out today that it's not live till tomorrow. That was my point.

My question is to the Premier. The people of British Columbia have lost confidence in this minister. The Premier was asked a specific question by the Leader of the Opposition, and I note that he never mentioned the minister once. He went on the same rhetoric as the minister.

So my question to the Premier is this. Does he have confidence in this minister? Is this the right person for the job at this critical juncture in the forest industry?

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, the comments from the member opposite are particularly disturbing to me, coming from that member, who actually claims to have had some experience in the forest industry. He would know about the cyclical nature of the industry. He would know about the importance of markets to actually drive the benefit of jobs and opportunities within the industry. To get up and try and make the comment that a government in a market of four million people can control the North American market is quite disingenuous to the people of the province of British Columbia.

We have invested $25 million in international marketing in China, Korea, India and other countries so that we can expand the markets of British Columbia. I don't know where the members opposite want to see….

Hon. R. Coleman: I guess they're opposed to the fact that $120 million has gone into mitigating the impact on roads in the mountain pine beetle area so our people can continue to harvest and have a future in forestry in British Columbia.

Hon. G. Campbell: Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that this is the minister who actually helped to negotiate a softwood lumber agreement that brought $2 billion back to the province of British Columbia. This is the minister who understands that that $2 billion is helping to create jobs in forestry, investment in forestry and a long-term future for forestry in British Columbia.

This is the minister who brought in the coastal revitalization plan in the province of British Columbia. This is the minister who's expanding foreign markets, which that opposition's government ignored for ten years, so that forestry would have a future in our province. This is the minister who's expanding our product line, creating billions and billions of dollars of opportunities, and this is the minister who is working in community after community after community to find a way that we can get through this difficult time for forest families and for the future of our province.

D. Routley: This is a Premier who stood by and watched successive Forests ministers disable and break our industry. This is a Premier who stood by while the forest policies of his successive Forests ministers have closed 46 mills and lost 20,000 jobs — 3,000 of them in the last three weeks. Mills with markets are being forced to close by that Premier and that Forests Minister's policies — the loss of key infrastructure, the auction of thousands of pieces of equipment, the bankruptcy of logging contractors.

D. Routley: …brags about job fairs — job fairs where Alberta pulp mills are coming to recruit our workers. This is proof of failed policy. This is proof of a failed minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: This is the government that attracted $3 billion in capital investment because of the changes that were made in the forest sector. This is the government that made the changes that were necessary to put our market in a position to compete in world markets long term. When the downturn in the forest industry turns around, this will be the jurisdiction in North America and the world that will be able to compete better than anybody else because of those changes.

L. Krog: On May 28, 2007, this Premier spoke in this House at length about the disclosure process in the B.C. Rail corruption investigation. The Premier said at that time: "The Premier's office won't be checked with on this." He was very clear and repeated this several times. "The Premier's office won't be checked with on this."

Now we know that this was not the case. Will the Premier admit that his statement was incorrect, his office was checked with and the investigation was tainted by this abuse of the process approved by the Supreme Court of British Columbia?

Hon. W. Oppal: I would have thought that that member would know better by now. He's a lawyer.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Yale-Lillooet. Don't refer to members' names, please.

Hon. W. Oppal: The member well knows that this matter is before the Supreme Court of British Columbia. The judge in that case will make appropriate findings of fact. It is totally inappropriate for anyone in this House to make any reference at all to what's going on in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. I'm not going to comment on that. I've said before that it would be totally improper for me or for any other member of this House to comment on what's going on in a courtroom.

L. Krog: I'd remind the Attorney General that this matter has been before the courts for four years. It was last spring, and the Premier had no problem talking about it then, did he? He said last year right in this House that the Premier's office would not be checked with to ensure "there be no political interference," but the Premier's office was checked with.

Mr. Dobell has said publicly that he was under no obligation not to disclose the substance of his discussions. Who did he talk with, and when did he talk? Was the Premier made aware of the RCMP's concerns? Was Mr. Collins? Was Ms. Reid? How far up did this interference go?

Hon. W. Oppal: We respect the independence of the courts, and we will not comment on matters that are before the courts.

B. Ralston: Mr. Dobell, the Premier's Deputy Minister and his alter ego, viewed and discussed critical documents in the B.C. Rail corruption trial investigation — this despite the fact that he was not authorized to do so under a protocol approved by the B.C. Supreme Court.

On May 28, 2007, the Premier in this House said: "The Premier's office won't be checked with on this." After talking at length last year, the Premier is now suddenly reluctant to explain this contradiction. Can the Attorney General advise: was the Premier wrong to discuss this matter here in this House last year?

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, if there are contradictions, I'm sure the judge is capable of dealing with them.

B. Ralston: On November 24, 2004, the lawyer for the Premier and cabinet, Mr. George Copley, QC, wrote a letter to Mr. Dobell. He addressed it to "Ken Dobell, Deputy Minister to the Premier, Premier's office." Mr. Copley confirmed that the two had met earlier to discuss documents that were critical to the investigation — so critical, in fact, that the RCMP were planning to interview Ministers Gary Collins and Judith Reid about those very documents.

Three weeks later, on December 14, Gary Collins abruptly resigned and left politics. Can the Premier assure this House that there was no connection between Mr. Dobell's viewing of those documents and Mr. Collins's departure?

M. Farnworth: The Attorney General stands in this House and says he cannot comment, so I'd like him to try and answer the question once again. The Premier has stood in this House and answered questions on the issue. Mr. Dobell has stood outside the House and answered questions on this issue. Has he given any advice whatsoever to the Premier not to comment, and has he given any advice to Mr. Dobell whatsoever not to comment?

Hon. W. Oppal: The Premier understands that the judges are independent of the Legislature. We don't comment on what they're doing.

M. Farnworth: My question, then, again to the Attorney General, is: does he think it's appropriate for the Premier to comment in this House on this issue, and does he think it's appropriate, then, for Mr. Dobell to make comments on this matter outside this House, given his repeated statements in this House?

Hon. W. Oppal: What is really inappropriate here is an opposition that has absolutely no respect for the courts. None.

C. Trevena: The crisis in health care in the north Island is profound. Both Port Hardy and Port McNeill are short of doctors, and the emergency rooms at those hospitals are open on alternate days. But instead of trying to solve the problem, VIHA said doctors who are worried about trying to make the system work are being unprofessional, and they threatened to stop the doctors accessing remote first nations communities, where health care is vital.

I'd like to ask the Minister of Health to tell this House who is being unprofessional: doctors trying to serve people in remote communities or the health authority, which is saying that the system isn't broken.

Hon. G. Abbott: It's the opposition member that's being unprofessional. I'm glad to answer that question right off the top.

The Vancouver Island Health Authority works tirelessly to recruit physicians to the north end of Vancouver Island through Health Match B.C., through a variety of other initiatives, through the Family Physicians for B.C. program and a range of other programs. VIHA and Health Match B.C. are working tirelessly to recruit physicians to the north end of the Island. Similarly, the physicians on the north end of the Island work tirelessly to provide the best of services to the good people of the north end of the Island.

The people who failed are the people across the floor, who, throughout the 1990s, failed to graduate enough physicians and nurses in this province. We've doubled the number of physicians that we're graduating in the province of British Columbia. We've doubled the number of nurses. It is the opposition that ought to be ashamed of themselves.

C. Wyse: Mr. Speaker, 36 members of the Clinton and District Cattlemen's Association support private member's Bill M202, to be enacted as legislation in the province of British Columbia, the B.C. Rail Corridor Safety Act, 2008.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call in this chamber continued second reading debate on Bill 34, University Amendment Act, 2008, and in Section A, Committee of Supply, for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation.

B. Ralston: I rise to address Bill 34, which is before the House for second reading.

This bill creates a new definition of a "special purpose, teaching university" and designates certain colleges as universities. In particular, the former University College of the Fraser Valley becomes the University of the Fraser Valley, Kwantlen University College becomes Kwantlen Polytechnic University, and Malaspina University College becomes Vancouver Island University. Capilano College becomes Capilano University, and the Emily Carr Institute of Art and Design is renamed the Emily Carr University of Art and Design.

Now, it's perhaps not surprising and not a long step to a move from calling an institution a university college to calling it a university. But it appears that the minister and the government have agreed with the point of view that I'm not sure merits the kind of support, publicly, that this bill exhibits.

The post-secondary education system in British Columbia has, up until recently, been an articulated and integrated system, and the colleges and the universities each had their role to play. They worked together towards providing a total system of post-secondary education. Probably, the first step was taken with the redesignation of David Thompson university from Cariboo College and the subsuming of Okanagan College into the University of British Columbia Okanagan campus. Those steps have, I think, begun to move the whole system in a different direction.

I think it's fair to say that the change in the first three — Fraser Valley, Kwantlen and Malaspina — is probably understandable. Recently I have met with the college board at Kwantlen and the president. The argument that they put was more a matter of the name rather than…. At least, the plan was not to change the functions of the institution. The reason was that the public — some parents, and particularly those students who the institutions might draw from overseas — was more confident of the designation "university" than they were of "college."

If this argument has been accepted, it's perhaps a bit unfortunate because the college designation for a post-secondary institution has a long and venerable tradition. Indeed, there's nothing in the American experience that would suggest that Americans hold the description of college in any disrepute. When an undergraduate applies to Harvard for admission as an undergraduate student, and if they're admitted, they're admitted to Harvard College. If a student applies to Yale and they're accepted as an undergraduate, they're admitted to Yale College.

Indeed the Premier himself, according to his biography on the website, attended Dartmouth College in New Hampshire, which is a well-known and well-regarded liberal arts college in New Hampshire.

The Minister of Health himself taught at Okanagan University College. The Minister for ActNow has a master's degree from Antioch College, if the website is accurate. The Minister of Education has an arts and science diploma, according to the website, from the College of New Caledonia. The member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine served on the board of the Northwest Community College.

So there are connections among government members and colleges, and there's certainly no reason to think

less of the designation and of their efforts because of their association in the past with colleges.

I understand the recommendation that Mr. Plant has made. I understand the desire of the government to act upon it, at least as far as those first three institutions are concerned, but it does seem to be really a matter of opinion as to whether the term "college" carries less of a connotation, less of an aura than the term "university." I would suggest that that opinion, certainly, in the United States would be divided. It's a very common expression to speak of students going to college, and the term university is far less frequently used.

That aside, I do have some specific concerns where it concerns the Kwantlen institution. Kwantlen University College is to be renamed Kwantlen Polytechnic University. It is the only one of the group to be given the term "polytechnic university." I have been asked by those who teach and parents of those who might attend there what the reason is for the addition of the term "polytechnic."

Given the track record of the government in breaking its three-year commitment on budgets for post-secondary education, which my colleague from Victoria-Hillside has set out in some detail previous to me, I guess the concern is: is that designation one which will in the long run attract less funding? Is it somehow in a different category? There doesn't appear to be any explanation as to why that was chosen.

In Great Britain there were a number of post-secondary educational institutions which were called polytechnics. In fact, that was a term that was used widely. Then, succumbing to some of the same pressures and temptations, I suppose, as the minister has succumbed to in this bill, they were all redesignated and renamed as universities.

I'm at a loss to understand the combination of university and polytechnic. I'm sure that at committee stage, should we ever get there, the minister will want to explain that, because there is some anxiety that that means less funding in the long run.

One of the strengths of the university colleges and the college system in general has been their ability to offer small classes in academic subjects. The board at Kwantlen is justifiably proud of the fact that in the university transfer program, those students who are educated in first and second year at Kwantlen and who then are accepted at, for example, Simon Fraser University, where their credentials and their accomplishments are recognized…. Their academic performance is as good as those students at SFU who took their first and second year at Simon Fraser itself.

The classes are smaller. There are no big, lecture-type courses in which there are 100 or 150 students in a first-year lecture. The teaching aspect of the colleges has been something that I'm sure that the minister will want to preserve.

The other thing about the colleges is that they do offer a broad range of education. Just yesterday in the Committee on Public Accounts, the committee was reviewing a report from the Auditor General about the progress of the government in achieving literacy goals. Colleges, in some of the programs that they have offered up till now, although there's financial pressure…. Some of these very excellent programs are going to be forced to be closed by the minister not keeping his three-year commitment on the budget.

There are a number of excellent programs which deal with and help those adults who wish to improve their literacy skills, their ability to read and write. What the report from the Auditor General said is that some 40 percent of adults in British Columbia don't read and write at a level that's compatible with the kinds of demands that we face in contemporary society. In other words, they need some help in increasing their skills.

Colleges provide that kind of education. They also provide education in a broad range of pre-trade courses, which prepare people for taking a trade. They also prepare people for acquiring trade credentials, and some of those programs are very successful.

Last year the Finance Committee visited briefly at the College of the Rockies in Cranbrook. There were some welding courses there, which were oversubscribed, where employers were looking to hire the graduates. Virtually as they walked out the door on the last day of school, they walked into full-time employment.

These are very effective institutions in meeting some of the demands that employers have and meeting the aspirations of students and their families. The pressure to change to universities…. I suppose, again, the anxiety is that…. Although they are designated teaching universities, the concern among many of those who teach, some of those who attend and in the broader community is that a university implies more of a focus, understandably, on academic programs and less of a focus on the broad range of programs that the college system in British Columbia so effectively offers. So it is to be regretted if that is the intention and the direction that the government chooses to take.

I suppose one would ask from the perspective of those remaining colleges, of which there are many: how is one to be viewed as a college that continues with the title "college"? Of course, there are a number. I mentioned the College of the Rockies in Cranbrook. I could mention Douglas College, Langara College, the Nicola Valley Institute of Technology, the North Island College, Northern Lights College in Dawson Creek, Northwest Community College in Terrace and Selkirk College in Castlegar.

How are these institutions going to be viewed in the future, when the minister is moving some of those institutions in the direction of being called teaching universities? Is there a stratification that's taking place? And is a new tier of institution being created, which will attract the momentum for its own funding that will be different and greater than those of the existing colleges?

If the argument about colleges being held in less esteem is one to which there's credence given…. How are those colleges to meet the challenge of attracting students and continuing to offer the programs that they do if the message that's being sent out, directly or indirectly,

subtly or subconsciously, is that somehow they are institutions which are inferior?

I note that my colleague from Surrey–Panorama Ridge appears to have an introduction to make. I will give way briefly for him to do that.

J. Brar: Visiting us today up in the gallery, we have 30 grade 5 students from Panorama Park Elementary School in the Surrey–Panorama Ridge riding. They're also accompanied by teachers and parents. I will ask the members from both sides to please make them feel welcome.

B. Ralston: The concern is that those institutions that remain, of which there are many…. I haven't recited a complete list, but they are set throughout the province. They're actively engaged in offering a wide range of programs to citizens. They will be viewed in a different light, and their task — in developing their curricula, in attracting students, in building strong faculty and in satisfying the wishes of employers and the aspirations of students — will be made more difficult by this stratification of institutions that the minister is introducing.

Really, I suppose the crux of the concern is that with this new designation comes no more money. It's ironic, indeed, as the member for Victoria-Hillside has pointed out, that at a time when the minister has not honoured his commitment of a three-year budget, there's no further money coming to any of these institutions, despite the change of name.

The minister, in his response, always said: "Well, the budgets have increased." Indeed they have, but the critical point for budget planning is that there was a commitment made. There was a three-year expectation. A three-year budget was set out, and the colleges and institutions and universities were encouraged to believe — because they accepted what the minister and his staff said — that that opportunity and their budget plans could rest secure in the knowledge that that funding was forthcoming.

Setting out a budget and creating a budget…. As all legislators here know, and those who follow politics or those who have even done a budget in the parent advisory committee or for the soccer team or anything like that, setting out a budget is not always something that's easy and can be adjusted at the snap of a finger.

Certainly, when you're trying to plan forward, it becomes very difficult when your expectations of programs that you're going to offer are confounded by a sudden and inexplicable reversal by the minister concerned. That's the position that colleges and institutions have found themselves in this spring, notwithstanding the commitment that was made previously.

I want to quote from a few people who are very knowledgable and who are leaders in the field of education in the province, who make submissions regularly to the Finance Committee and to the minister. For example, Robert Clift, who works with the Federation of Post-Secondary Educators, says:

That's a very measured response, as one might expect from someone in his position, but it's certainly a profound disagreement with what the minister has said and really, I suppose, a measure of disappointment at the direction that's being taken here. He went on to say:

I, in pursuit of my duties as a member of the Legislature, have met with the senior officials, the president and the people responsible for Simon Fraser University in Surrey. They have made the point that the student body that has been attracted to the Surrey campus of Simon Fraser is at least 50 percent of students who live in Surrey.

When one looks at the statistics about participation in post-secondary education, that particular geographic area south of the Fraser is under-represented by students in post-secondary education. So there is a real need for post-secondary education at the university level in the south-of-the-Fraser region.

What experts confirm is that for lower-income students, for working-class parents, for middle-class parents whose budgets are pinched, the closer the institution is to the home of the student, the easier it is to attend university and gain that education. It's much more difficult when it becomes necessary to pay for a separate residence or to pay…. Particularly these days, with the plethora of taxes on the cost of gasoline for commuting, the further distance you have to travel, the more expensive it becomes.

At that point, participation by those students who are under-represented in post-secondary education…. Certainly, the institutions have expressed the concern that they don't participate at the same rate and are anxious to attract them to post-secondary education. The absence of spaces at that level becomes a problem.

Yet Simon Fraser University, SFU, is faced with the same kind of budgetary tightening and restrictions. They've expressed this publicly. Mr. Warren Gill, for example, who is a senior vice-president at Simon Fraser, has expressed the concern that the breaking of the budgetary commitment of the three-year time line is forcing Simon Fraser University to make those kinds of cutbacks.

The substitution of the university designation at Kwantlen, now Polytechnic University…. Because there won't be any additional funding, there won't be

any new spaces. The programs will continue the same. They, too, are facing the same 2.6 percent reduction of their anticipated funding. It will compound the problem.

Indeed, business leaders south of the Fraser who have been anxious and advocated…. SFU Surrey, originally a separate technical university, came about because there was a citizens' movement, not only in that part of Surrey but in the Fraser Valley, asking that a university be established there for all the reasons that I've set out. There is a demand for it. There is community support for it.

Unfortunately, the steps that the government is taking here are, in the words of Mr. Clift; "more window dressing than substantive." So the concern that I have is shared in the riding that I represent and in the Fraser Valley, generally south of the river.

The other concern that I want to raise briefly before I close is that, typically, in a university…. A university is an institution. The first universities in Europe were established, I think, in Bologna in the 11th century, in Paris in the 12th century and in Oxford and Cambridge probably around the same time. I'm not sure of the time exactly, but they were medieval institutions which possessed a high degree of autonomy.

That tradition continues in the sense that, even despite the linkage with government and the funding that comes from government, there's a certain measure of autonomy in governing their own affairs. One of perhaps the symbolic acts of independence is the election of the chancellor, who is the titular head of the university. But in this act, chancellors of these universities — contrary to the tradition of virtually, I suppose, 1,000 years — will be appointed rather than elected by the alumni, the faculty and the students.

That may sound to some people as though it's a minor quibble or it's really a matter of form and not substance, but it is symbolic in expressing the manner in which these new universities are viewed by the government. It really is, as Mr. Clift said, more about window dressing than substance. If they were creating, indeed, high-quality universities in the tradition of universities, that kind of step wouldn't be taken. That failure to permit chancellors to be elected is really symbolic of the whole action of the government in promulgating and putting forward this legislation.

So there are concerns that must be raised at committee stage — particularly, in my case, why Kwantlen is being called Kwantlen Polytechnic University. Is there is any significance to that in terms of the prospect of future funding or the regard with which the institution is held by the administration at the ministry or in the plans for its development or the range of curricula that it will be able to offer in relation to others? It's the only one in the group, and it's so far the only one in the province. Although I've met regularly, at the invitation of the board and the president of Kwantlen over the years…. I've never heard that particular name floated before. So I would, at committee stage, like an answer to that.

I thank the Speaker for the opportunity to speak to this. I think I've now concluded my remarks on this bill, and I will turn to any colleagues who wish to add their comments to the debate.

C. Wyse: It is indeed my pleasure to stand up here and address the House on Bill 34, the University Amendment Act.

With what I did in a former life, education to me has always been an enabling situation. It's an opportunity that has provided to individuals a chance to open many doors for themselves right through their lives, at whatever times in their lives they may decide to pursue various aspects.

With that in mind, I rise to speak to this particular bill because of a concern I have. This is simply a bill that is rebranding existing organizations and, in rebranding them, actually hasn't changed the situation at all. In actual fact, it may have created a different set of compounding aspects for education.

I would like to come back to my riding of Cariboo South, where the minister and I have had a number of opportunities to discuss this particular aspect of post-secondary education and its significance. We have had conversations about the distinction between providing capital costs and providing operating costs. It is the provision of the operating costs that actually provides the programs, and it's the programs that are the enabling aspect of this post-secondary education. When we look at operation versus capital, we need to have a look at the operating funds — their limitation and their availability.

Recently there was an announced reduction of 2.6 percent in the operating funds that had been promised to the existing post-secondary education facilities across the province. In Cariboo South that is a concern. The long-term stability over three years, which is very important to providing for programming, became jeopardized once more.

The community has been very appreciative of the support that the minister has shown in the capital aspect in Williams Lake. However, that is separate from establishing the population to fill those buildings, to make it available. Now, this particular campus has the function of providing this post-secondary training closer to home. Therefore, the costs become remarkably reduced for the student — whether it be a single parent, whether it be a senior, whether it be a recent graduate from high school.

Those are some of the aspects that I referred to earlier about the enabling part. I become concerned because at this moment in time we do not know yet the effect as a result of these funding cuts on the programs that will be offered in the Williams Lake campus.

In speaking about this particular bill, I don't wish to leave the impression that I'm here simply throwing some stones at a name change. But there are other people that are also more directly connected with these facilities likewise raising the same concern that I'm bringing forward here in the House about the reduction of operating capital funds available.

I would like to take a moment to share with you one of the concerns from one of those individuals. This is from Mr. Nilson, the president of Malaspina University College, who supports the bill but discusses the funding aspect of it. "No funding came with this announcement, but what it does is it allows us to compete and partner with other institutions in other ways that I think is really going to provide us with some exciting opportunities." He identifies the underlying aspect about the lack of funding that is accompanying the name change.

I'm from an area that has been experiencing what happens when the programs are not funded. It doesn't allow that particular building to develop and grow and satisfy and look after the needs of its community. The area that I'm from — as you're very familiar with, Madam Speaker — is undergoing one of the most traumatic social changes that it has experienced. It is undergoing major challenges in the forest industry, which we have been debating time in and time out in this House. It is that enabling retraining that has been referred to as being crucial for re-empowering the people that are being affected by what is happening in the forest industry.

How are we, here in this House, reconciling all of these contradictions? On one hand, we say that we support these things being available. Yet four weeks ago the funding was reduced. It is that lack of consistency — the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing — that concerns me.

It isn't the necessity of changing the names, but it's this aspect of simply not providing the long-term stability and the operating funds so that the programs become established and the communities know that they will exist and be there on an ongoing basis and they, in turn, can do their planning around staying and using those facilities in their own communities.

If we're not looking after the facilities that we already have in place, if we're not funding them as per the plans set by the government and treasury, how can we expect the communities to develop the stability to use those facilities? That is why I'm here speaking on Bill 34, the University Amendment Act.

Names changes in themselves are potentially harmless. However, if in changing the names all we are doing is creating false security, if in changing names all we're doing is rebranding, if in changing names all we're doing is attempting to distract from what the left hand is doing — reducing operating funds, from the community being able to understand what is really happening in their post-secondary education…. It is those concerns that concern me.

I have nothing but the greatest respect for the Minister of Advanced Education. Earlier I acknowledged his efforts. Earlier I acknowledged what he has done to this point in time. But I still do not see, nor am I convinced, that this component around operating funds has been satisfactorily addressed for my area and my constituency.

It is with that, Madam Speaker, that I am here in front of you, appreciating the opportunity that you have provided. I could talk about changes to the independence of universities. Universities generally are independent and work independently. That is something that has existed with those organizations for a very, very long time, as long as we can go back in our culture. It has been the practice that universities are run somewhat at arm's length from government. I become concerned when I look at the bill and I see contained within the bill that the chancellor now becomes an appointee of the government, whoever the government may be.

The credibility of these particular organizations requires that independence. That is how they develop and grow their reputations. That is how they develop and strengthen their programs. To have the chancellor become an extension or an appointee of any government, I would question.

I've appreciated this opportunity to stand in the House and raise these concerns. I've raised them with the minister on the area of operating funds. I would seek his assurances that those distinctions will be made, that these communities, likewise, will not be misled, that this is not simply a rebranding and meant to throw up some smoke on that significant part.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no more speakers, I call on the Minister of Advanced Education to conclude debate.

Hon. M. Coell: I can say that I am shocked and appalled by the comments of the critic for Advanced Education. I have been in this House 12 years. I don't think I've ever seen anyone insult so many people in such a short period of time.

The critic speaks for the NDP. He speaks for every one of those members over there. When he calls the bill "hard to take seriously," "a bit of a farce," "cheap political theatre," he's speaking for all the members over there.

I want to ask the member for Nanaimo: does he agree with his critic that Nanaimo should not have a university? Well, on this side of the House we believe Nanaimo deserves a university, and we're making sure they get one. I can tell you that Nanaimo…. When a thousand people show up — the faculty, the students, the board, the chambers of commerce…. The people of that city want a university. They deserve a university. And this side of the House is going to give them a university.

Hon. M. Coell: The member from Cowichan speaks. Would you not like to have a university campus in Duncan? That's what you're going to get — a university campus in Duncan.

The critic insults the entire community of Duncan, of Nanaimo. His words will come back to haunt him. I guarantee it.

All I heard was opposed to the bill. As I said: "The bill can't be taken seriously. It's a bit of a farce. It's cheap political theatre."

I'd ask the members from Surrey: do they not need a university in Surrey? Do they not support a university in Surrey?

I don't know why the members would let the critic oppose a bill. He spoke in opposition for over an hour, spoke in opposition to everything about new universities. I have not seen anyone insult so many people.

When we went to the Fraser Valley, there were a thousand people there — students, faculty members, members of the community. The critic, who speaks for the NDP, says that it's hard to take them seriously? Well, if the critic can't take the University College of the Fraser Valley seriously and he can't have it being made into a university, I think that's a little hard to take for the people of the valley.

He said he just couldn't understand Capilano. Why would the member from the Sunshine Coast actually sign the petition to have it become a university? But it's not good enough for the critic. He insults that entire community right up the North Shore to the Sunshine Coast, to Pemberton, to Whistler. That member has insulted every member of that community, and I hope the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast will set him straight. I hope he'll set him straight.

Hon. M. Coell: You know, one of the biggest insults…. A couple of members of the opposition, who speak for all of the NDP, commented about Emily Carr Institute of Art and Design. It's 83 years old, solely degree-oriented, has produced some of the great artists in Canada, and they don't think it should be a university. They speak in opposition. How could you insult the entire arts community of British Columbia by saying that it can't be taken seriously, that it's a bit of a farce, that it's cheap political theatre?

Maybe the member should check the Hansard and see what else he said that might come back to haunt him, because I can't remember a time when one member insulted more members in this House and more British Columbians….

Hon. M. Coell: Well, Members, I think the critic, who speaks for the NDP, should go back and read Hansard…

Hon. M. Coell: …and just see how many people they insulted. The thousands and thousands of people who showed up at these announcements weren't there just for cheap political theatre. They weren't there for just no reason. I think you should have been there.

In speaking in opposition, I hope they have the guts enough to vote in opposition. It's one thing to sit there and say: "Oh, these aren't good ideas. Oh, these people don't deserve universities in their regions, and the arts community certainly doesn't deserve a university of Emily Carr."

I don't know what the members are talking about, but they certainly weren't speaking in favour of this motion. This is a motion that creates five new universities in the province of British Columbia, and the communities want them. The individuals who attend them want them. I don't know how he could insult the students in five of our institutions by saying they're not worthy of having a university. How could he say that? I can't believe it.

Hon. M. Coell: The member, again, for Cowichan-Ladysmith doesn't want to see a university college campus or a university campus in Duncan? I would certainly hope he would.

I certainly hope you'd support the students in your riding. I'd certainly hope you support the faculty and the staff who all want to see these become universities.

Let's talk about funding. A 40 percent increase in my budget in our term in government. A billion and a half dollars in infrastructure in my ministry. The funny thing is that they all voted against that too. The NDP voted against every bit of it. They talk against everything. They vote against everything.

I said I was shocked and appalled at the comments of the critic, the member for Victoria-Hillside, and the insults that he has made. Believe me, they've been heard.

This is a great opportunity for British Columbia. We have a great post-secondary education system in this province, and it's going to get better in the years to come. I would move second reading.

Hon. M. Coell: I would move the bill be referred to Committee of the Whole for the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 34, University Amendment Act, 2008, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

S. Simpson: Hon. Speaker, I am pleased. I believe we've been joined here by some students, I think 29 students, and five teachers and adults from Our Lady of Sorrows School, who are here visiting us and enjoying the lively debate of the Legislature. I hope you'll all make them welcome.

Hon. B. Penner: I now call Bill 38, Protected Areas of British Columbia (Conservancies and Parks) Amendment Act, 2008, for second reading.

PROTECTED AREAS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
(CONSERVANCIES AND PARKS)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

With Bill 38, the Protected Areas of British Columbia (Conservancies and Parks) Amendment Act, 2008, our province is once again demonstrating international leadership in the establishment of protected areas. Bill 38 will add more than 990,000 hectares of British Columbia, an area approximately twice the size of Prince Edward Island, to B.C.'s parks and protected areas system, establishing 70 conservancies and 11 class A parks.

These amendments represent one of the largest single additions to the parks and protected areas system in the history of British Columbia, both in terms of the area and the number of sites. In fact, I believe that it is the single largest number of protected areas established at one time.

These new conservancies and parks have, for the most part, been identified through a multi-stakeholder land use planning process and extensive government-to-government discussions with first nations in the plan areas. The establishment of these new conservancies and parks is an outstanding example of what can be achieved when individual citizens, environmental groups, resource industries, first nations and local governments are committed to the task of land use planning.

These amendments continue the implementation of land use decisions for the central coast and north coast that the Premier announced in February 2006. Hon. Speaker, 24 new conservancies were designated in that year, and a further 41 conservancies identified in the north coast and central coast land use decisions were legally designated in 2007.

With these amendments that we're debating today, another 50 new conservancies will be created as a result of those discussions, and two existing conservancies will be expanded. These new conservancies and additions will cover 660,000 hectares. In addition, two existing protected areas established under the Environment and Land Use Act will be converted to conservancies.

These conservancies, as with all conservancies, recognize the importance of these areas to first nations by ensuring that they will be able to use the resources in these areas to sustain their communities and their cultural connections to the land.

These new conservancies also enhance the protection of the environment and the opportunities for sustainable recreational uses, such as wildlife viewing, for all British Columbians and people from around the world. These areas include intact and functioning ecosystems, including old-growth forests that support keystone species such as salmon and grizzly bears. There are also features that draw interest for recreational activity, such as hot springs and anchorages that provide safe havens for boaters.

Just to give the House a flavour of the outstanding natural, recreational and cultural landscapes that are being protected in these new conservancies, I would now like to read a few descriptions of some of these special places. This is a part of my legislative duties that I face with some trepidation every year, as I seek to make my best efforts in accurately pronouncing a number of the terms and names in the legislation. So please bear with me. I ask for the members' forgiveness in advance.

Lucy Islands conservancy is in the north coast planning area. This conservancy contains a number of small islands and rocky islets located in Chatham Sound. There's a quiet lagoon enclosed by sandy beaches, and many reefs and wooded lands. Lucy Islands and the surrounding rocky islets provide prime seabird colony habitat. An estimated 50,000 birds use the area, including something known as the rhinoceros auklet and black oystercatcher colonies.

The shallows south of the islands offer excellent fishing, making the Lucy Islands a popular destination for Prince Rupert residents. These islands are also frequented by kayakers crossing from Prince Rupert to the Melville and Dundas islands.

This conservancy is an important area for first nation resource-gathering and is within the asserted traditional territories of the Coast Tsimshian First Nation.

The Ksgaxl–Stephens Island conservancy, at 14,018 hectares in size, is in the north coast planning area. The large, sheltered marine inlets of this conservancy are important wetland habitat for shorebirds and waterfowl, including many red-listed and blue-listed species.

Recreation opportunities in this conservancy include camping, kayaking, fishing and diving. The conservancy is also an important area for traditional gathering. The conservancy is within the asserted traditional territory of the Coast Tsimshian First Nation.

The Upper Kimsquit River conservancy is being established pursuant to the land use decision for the central coast planning area. The Upper Kimsquit River conservancy is the highest-ranked watershed for

biodiversity on the central coast. This conservancy will protect the unique grizzly bear habitat feature not found anywhere else in British Columbia.

After spawning in Kimsquit Lake, adult sockeye salmon carcasses often freeze in the lake in winter. As they thaw in the spring, they become an important source of protein for grizzly bears as they emerge from hibernation. This is in the area of the Kitlope, Fiordland and Tweedsmuir areas, and the bears gather in the Upper Kimsquit River area to take advantage of this feeding opportunity.

The Upper Kimsquit also receives extensive use by deer and mountain goat populations and is one of the few coastal drainages that support a resident moose population. The conservancy is within the asserted traditional territories of the Nuxalk and Heiltsuk First Nations.

The Gitxaala Nii Luutiksm–Kitkatla conservancy, located approximately 30 kilometres southwest of Prince Rupert, is being expanded by 1,489 hectares. This addition includes a key recreational anchorage at Welcome Harbour and important cultural and heritage uses in the Henry Island and Dancey Island areas. The total area of the conservancy will be 29,539 hectares.

In addition, this bill will complete the implementation of new protected areas identified in these historic land use decisions. Overall, approximately 1.9 million hectares of spectacular and ecologically rich land in the world's largest intact temperate rain forest will now be protected for the enjoyment of this generation and future generations.

In addition to completing the implementation of the central coast and north coast land use decisions, Bill 38 implements the protected areas arising from the Morice land and resource management plan. These amendments establish six new class A parks and seven new conservancies, totalling more than 132,000 hectares in the Morice plan area north of Tweedsmuir Provincial Park.

The Morice LRMP is a result of the province's collaborative partnerships with the Office of the Wet'suwet'en, the Lake Babine Nation, the Nedo'ats hereditary chiefs and the Yekooche First Nation, as well as industry and local communities.

These new conservancies and parks protect important recreation sites on Babine Lakes — areas that are important first nation cultural values — and representative forest communities, wetlands and river ecosystems.

Through these amendments our government is also beginning the implementation of the Sea to Sky and Haida Gwaii land use plans. In the Sea to Sky land use planning area, which encompasses over one million hectares around the communities of Pemberton, Squamish and Whistler, nine new conservancies are being established, and two existing class A provincial parks are being expanded with these amendments. The nine new conservancies account for over 44,000 hectares of new protected area.

In addition, 627 hectares are being added to Birkenhead Lake Provincial Park. This addition further protects important habitat for a variety of wildlife, including spotted owl, mountain goat and grizzly bears. The total area of the park will be 10,441 hectares or, translating it to a term that other people may better identify with, about 26,000 acres.

Another 1,953 hectares are being added to Duffey Lake Provincial Park to further protect wildlife habitat for mountain goats and bears. This addition virtually doubles the size of the existing park. This area is culturally important to first nations and provides important resource-gathering and harvesting opportunities. The total area of the park will be 4,048 hectares.

Once again, the participation of first nations in government-to-government discussions was a critical element of the process leading to identification of the new protected areas. The Lil'wat, the In-SHUCK-ch, the Tsleil-Waututh and the Squamish Nation all worked with this government to complete this land use plan, building on the recommendations of the public planning table submitted in 2004.

Two new conservancies are also being established in these amendments as a result of the Haida Gwaii land use agreement with the Haida Nation. Together, the Duu Guusd and the Yaaguun Suu conservancies encompass over 147,000 hectares in Haida Gwaii to protect ecosystems, resources of cultural importance to the Haida — particularly cedar — and support tourism opportunities on the islands.

These amendments also continue the implementation of the Okanagan and Shuswap land and resource management plan by establishing four class A parks and converting one existing Environment and Land Use Act protected area to class A park status. The four new class A parks were identified as special feature sites by the land use planning table.

Implementation of these sites was dependent on the resolution of outstanding land use issues, such as road access. These issues have been resolved, and I'm pleased to now legally establish these areas, according to the wishes of the planning tables, and of course assuming support from the Legislature.

The class A parks being established are Wap Creek, Eagle River, Denison-Bonneau and Mara Meadows. Each of these was identified by the planning table because they contain rare or special values that were worthy of permanent protection as a class A provincial park.

Denison-Bonneau, for example, contains high-elevation lakes known for their trout fishery. Eagle River protects part of the riparian zone on the Eagle River, which contains important spawning and rearing habitat for sockeye, coho and chinook salmon. Mara Meadows protects a major portion of Mara Creek and complements protections of rare plant communities in adjacent ecological reserves. Wap Creek contains important salmon and moose habitat and first nations cultural and spiritual values.

The existing Kalamalka Lake Provincial Park is being expanded by adding 2,223 hectares of land that

are currently designated as a protected area under the Environment and Land Use Act. Adding these lands to the park enhances protection of spawning and rearing habitat for kokanee and dry open Interior Douglas fir upland forest habitats that support a range of provincially listed species. The total area of the park will be 3,218 hectares.

Another class A provincial park being established on the central coast is this time the result of a private land acquisition. The government has partnered with the B.C. Marine Parks Forever Society and the Land Conservancy of British Columbia to purchase 88 hectares of private property at Allison Harbour near Cape Caution. The province has added a foreshore component to the park for a total of 132 hectares.

This harbour is the last safe anchorage for northbound boaters making the voyage around Cape Caution. This park will also provide habitat for grey whales in the summer and is within the traditional territory of the Gwa'sala-Nakwaxda'xw First Nation.

We are also expanding two marine parks off the east coast of Vancouver Island by adding a foreshore component. So 27 hectares of land and 310 hectares of foreshore are being added to Jedediah Island Marine Park. This expansion surrounds Jedediah Island and includes a number of small islands nearby. This addition protects the rich marine biodiversity of the sensitive ecosystem and increases the amount of rare and endangered plant habitat and seabird nest sites within the province's system of protected areas. The total area of the park will be 603 hectares — 293 hectares of upland and 310 hectares of foreshore.

Sabine Channel Marine Park is also being expanded by 69 hectares of upland and 2,090 hectares of foreshore. This expansion surrounds Jervis and Bunny islands, Finnerty islands, and Fegan and Larsen islets in Tucker Bay on Lasqueti Island. This addition will protect one of the least modified and developed areas in the Strait of Georgia. The total area of the park will be 2,254 hectares, and that's 164 hectares of upland and 2,090 hectares of foreshore. These parks are both popular destinations for kayakers.

Finally, the amendments in Bill 38 contain several boundary changes of an administrative or housekeeping nature that are part of the regular business of protected areas management. For example, we are shifting the descriptions of two ecological reserves, Vladimir J. Krajina and Lepas Bay, from schedule B of the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act to schedule A of the act.

We're doing this because official map plans have now been prepared for these ecological reserves, whereas the ecological reserves in schedule B are those which are described by reference to the original orders-in-council that created them. No land is being added to or removed from these ecological reserves.

Similarly, we are including Silver Star Provincial Park in schedule C of the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act. Silver Star was established by order-in-council and has not been included in the schedules to the act before because of a pending land transaction. That transaction, I'm advised, has now been completed, and so it's appropriate to include Silver Star in schedule C of the legislation. This means that land cannot be removed from the park without an act of the Legislature.

Also, the boundaries of six provincial parks and two conservancies are being modified to remove pre-existing Forest Service roads and mineral claims, correct errors in earlier boundary descriptions and enable highway improvements. The net effect of these changes is to remove 253 hectares from these eight areas.

The largest of these is the removal of approximately 100 hectares from Nisga'a Memorial Lava Bed Park to remove the right-of-way for Highway 113 from within the park's boundaries. This will enable the Ministry of Transportation to manage the right-of-way and to conduct necessary maintenance works without affecting the park.

These amendments are the culmination of working partnerships between first nations, conservation groups, industry, communities and this government to find solutions that keep everybody's interests in mind while building a province that is prosperous and a world leader in protecting our environment. I look forward to other comments that members may wish to make at this time.

S. Simpson: I'm pleased to have the opportunity to join the debate on Bill 38, the Protected Areas of British Columbia (Conservancies and Parks) Amendment Act, 2008.

As the minister said in his comments, this is a bill that does bring forward a number of conservancies. I believe there are about 70 conservancies and 11 new class A parks. It does, in large part, complete the commitment around conservancies in the central coast and north coast LRMPs, better known by some as the Great Bear.

It is a package. There are some questions about that, and I will get at some of those questions in the next few minutes. Essentially, the bill is a bill that we will support. We will have some questions now, and we certainly will be looking for some clarification when we get to committee stage.

The bill certainly goes ahead and does much of the work that I know there was some anxiety around among some of the environmental or conservation groups that had done work around the Great Bear to see these conservancies brought in. I know they are pleased to see that, but I also know there is some concern in this package.

What we don't have here is a set of maps. We don't have maps available to give us specifics of the boundaries there. I'm sure those maps will become available, but we haven't been able to tie down the maps for the large range of conservancies.

Of course, determining what those boundaries are is an important part of this work, and we look forward to seeing those. Hopefully, those maps will be available before we get to committee stage of the review of the bill so that if there are questions around specific boundaries of the specific conservancies or parks that

are identified, we'll be able to have that discussion and we'll be able to reference — as will the minister — those maps.

The other questions. This is a question that has been raised to me by a number of people who have looked at this piece of legislation. They are people who in large part are in support of the legislation, but they do have concerns. Their concerns revolve around the question of implementation as well.

If you look at the commencement section of the legislation, it provides for commencement with specific sections being identified as commencement not occurring until regulations are put in place by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, by cabinet — on sections 5, 7 and 9 to 11. What those sections do is identify the bulk of the conservancies that are in this piece of legislation.

So while the bill comes through and will pass and be in place, it leaves a lot of questions unanswered that potentially are answered through regulation by the cabinet. That's an area where we certainly will want to have some discussion when we get to committee stage — about why that is and what the intention of that is.

Particularly for the 51-odd conservancies that fall within what is known as the Great Bear, there's some question about whether there is any potential for changes on what the commitments to those boundaries are. I'm very hopeful that the commitment is to the boundaries as they were originally identified. The Minister of Agriculture and Lands, who had responsibility for much of the negotiation around those land use agreements, has stated recently that that would be his intention. It was to confirm that they would hold to those boundaries.

We'll be looking to be very clear about that and specific — that in fact those boundaries, as they were identified back in 2006, continue to be the boundaries in play when the maps become available. So we'll be looking for that information.

There are also issues that have been raised around some of the very specific conservancies here. We've seen some of those concerns. You'll know that there's been a great deal of discussion at different times around private power projects and their relationship in some of these conservancies.

We know there are at least five significant projects or packages of projects that are aimed at in a number of the conservancies: the Klinaklini, Europa, Cascade-Sutslem, plus two that have already been legislated, Banks Island and Crab.

They're all conservancies where there is discussion continuing about the notion of private power, other activity, resource development activity. So the question here will be: what is the government's intention in relation to that? Once these conservancies are legislated, will the boundaries stay true? Will there be changes within those boundaries? Is that part of the reason why commencement is being held back for a number of these?

I know there's a reference made here to further discussions with first nations, which I understand and appreciate, but I may well be looking to get some clarification about how long we are holding back this commencement. There's been some suggestion that it's for 30 days. Is it for 30 days? Is it for a longer period of time? What is the intention, and what commitments can we get out of the minister as to when, in fact, that commencement will happen so that those boundaries will be locked in?

When we look at some of these issues, we also know there are questions related to…. There's been a lot of mail back and forth and a lot of discussion back and forth in particular around one of the areas, and that is the entire area of the Klinaklini conservancy. Now, it's been put in schedule F, and schedule F provides the lowest level of protection of all the opportunities that are available under legislation.

Because it does open up that conservancy for activity, the total of some 37,000 hectares is potentially there for road use or to accommodate resource activities. We also know there is a major private power project interested in the area. To be fair, we expect there would need to be a boundary change to allow that to occur, but all of that activity is looked at.

So we're going to need to have some discussion with the minister, particularly when we get to committee stage. We'll be looking to have more detailed discussion about what exactly the government's thinking is around the Klinaklini area. Why did they put it into schedule F? Why have those protections not been provided — the full protection that's expected on a number of the other conservancies? We'll be looking forward to having the minister tell us what protections will be there, what the expectations are around that particular conservancy area and what will happen there.

We'll be asking questions even when we move away from those areas. We know that in the Sea to Sky LRMP, a release that came out in April certainly talked about the wildlands zones, where mineral development and tourism are permitted, and where maintaining cultural, recreational and wilderness values is the focus. We'll be looking for a little bit of clarification from the minister about what the expectations are, about what activities will in fact be allowed in the Sea to Sky LRMP and what he expects in terms of those areas and what will occur there.

Why has this additional step been put in, and will the minister be able to clarify in committee why this additional step was put in to delay commencement on the bulk of the conservancies here? Is the government making firm commitments around how it will deal with potential applications around boundary changes? What is it going to tell us about that process?

We know we were through the process at Pinecone Burke Park. What will the process be, particularly for those conservancies and those areas where we know the question of private power projects is in play?

We'll certainly be asking questions about why all of the Klinaklini is in schedule F and looking for some assurances from the government, from the minister, that the ecological integrity of this conservancy will be maintained over time. That will be a serious question for us around that particular piece.

As these issues move forward, particularly around the area where the bulk of this work has been done — where the bulk of the conservancies rest — we know that up around the central and north coast, we'll also be looking for an opportunity…. We may find this in committee, or we may have to find this through debate here.

I believe it was in the minister's comments, in his introduction of the bill, where he talked about this. I would agree, substantively completing the work in terms of the designation of the conservancies for the central and north coast LRMPs.

What we do know, though, is that there are still questions to be asked around those conservancies. The dedication of those conservancies certainly doesn't complete the work. We'll be looking for information about when and how we might expect the management plans for those conservancies will be developed. There's a requirement for management plans for all of those conservancies to be developed, and we'll be looking for information on that.

We know there's probably almost another 300,000 hectares of biodiversity areas which have an increased level of protection within some of those areas. We'll be looking for some information about the commitments on those 300,000 hectares of biodiversity areas. That will be an important question for us that we'll be looking at trying to deal with.

I know this is an issue that is of concern to a number of the conservancy organizations that the minister referenced in his comments, which have been participants around the Great Bear and the work that has been going on around ecosystem-based management and other things. There are regional plan expectations for the conservancies, particularly for those parts of the conservancies that are outside the protected areas. There's a commitment to regional planning that has not been completed.

The expectation, I know, of those organizations — I know it's the expectation of a number of the first nations, and it certainly is reflected in the comments that were made at the introduction of this in 2006 — is around the question of whether those regional plans will be completed by March of next year, which is the expectation in terms of the framework that's been agreed to around the LRMPs. We don't know what the intention will be around that, but we will be looking for further information.

We will be supporting the bill at second reading, but we are hopeful that we will soon see maps so that we can confirm all of these conservancies, and that we will get answers to the questions around why there is a delay in the commencement of the majority of these conservancies and what that delay is likely to be and what the rationale for it is, with a little more explanation than "consultation with first nations." We'll be looking for a bit more explanation than that.

We'll be looking at some of the key issues around what the government is and isn't thinking around the allowances for resource development, whether it be private power projects or other resource development and road development in the conservancies — what the expectations are there and how those areas that are believed to be and desired to be protected areas will be protected.

Then, of course, there's the whole question around the management of these conservancies — how they're going to be managed and getting those management plans in place. We know that will be such an integral part of the success of the conservancies.

You designate the land, and that's all a very good thing. Or you designate the marine areas, and that's all a very good thing. But you need to put management plans in place that work for everybody, which get sign-off from all the legitimate interests — the first nations and other community interests that are there — and be able to move forward with those. And absolutely, the regional planning we know is expected to be completed by March of next year.

I know there's concern that the work hasn't been fulfilled on that. It's my understanding that the federal government, as a participant, contributed about $30 million to this process. There was an expectation that the provincial government would be matching those dollars to create the pot of money that would allow the planning that needs to go on to occur.

Those regional plans would deal with a whole array of issues including some of the management issues, resource management issues. That planning hasn't been done. We know it's a long way from being complete based on conversations we've had with parties that reasonably expect to be participants in that planning process.

They certainly feel there's an awful lot of work to be done in a very short period of time to get those plans in place. It's very important that those plans do get in place, particularly if we're going to put in the kind of management structures around resource management that we expect. So we'll be looking for that to occur.

I'm sure I have colleagues here who are looking to speak to this bill, and with that, I will take my place and leave it to my colleagues.

M. Sather: I rise to speak to Bill 38, Protected Areas of British Columbia (Conservancies and Parks) Amendment Act, 2008. I certainly support the creation of the conservancy areas and the parks — and I know there has been a lot of work done to bring this about from various groups within the province — most notably and well known, the Great Bear rain forest area, which is part of this agreement.

While I am pleased to see conservancies and parks come into being, these in particular, I have a lot of problems with Bill 38. To start off, the member for Vancouver-Hastings mentioned there are no maps on the government website where one can view these conservancies and, therefore, provide any intelligent comment on them.

M. Sather: The minister says, "Wrong," but I can tell you that I went through some considerable difficulty.

Finally, I had to go through the Legislative Library and get them to produce a map of some substance. The map that the minister raises in the air is certainly not one that shows any definitive boundaries of the conservancies.

Hon. B. Penner: And the legal maps are in the Clerk's office, as they are every year. All you have to do is go down the hall.

M. Sather: The legal maps are in the Clerk's office, the minister says. Well, all I know is that I didn't see that. I went to the library, and they weren't aware of it, so it certainly hasn't been very easily available.

M. Sather: I know the minister is very keen to speak, Madam Speaker, and I'm sure he'll get another opportunity.

I want to talk about the issue of independent power producers being within conservancies, which I think is unforgivable, quite frankly. In particular, I want to talk about the proposal by Kleena Power to put a megaproject, actually, on the Klinaklini River. The Klinaklini River is in one of the conservancies that's been set forth by this legislation.

If one looks — and I did look considerably at this, including with topographical maps — the intake for this power project which is, by the way, well on its way…. As is so often the case, other than with the Upper Pitt, there's virtually no input from the public on this project. When I look at it, I see that the intake for the diversion on this project will be within the conservancy. That's how it looks to me. If not, for certain, the head pond above that intake will be well within the conservancy — four kilometres or further, I estimate, within a conservancy.

This project is, as I said, a large project. There will be 16 kilometres of tunnel, this tunnel being over 27 feet in diameter. So it's a huge project. They're going to have what is euphemistically called a weir, which will be between 40 to 60 feet high. This is not a little project, a little weir, by any means.

There are 150 kilometres of power line to be associated with this project. There will be a concrete plant near the powerhouse along the Klinaklini River. There will be a construction camp of 800 people to work on this project, should it go through, part of which is in a conservancy.

M. Sather: Family-supporting jobs, the minister says. Well, family-supporting jobs from….

M. Sather: Yeah, I know. We're not talking about the Forests Ministry here, obviously.

Clearly, this government talks green, but I'm not so sure when we look at some of their actions, as we saw in the Upper Pitt, that they were green at all. We're seeing, again, here….

There will be a new road into the intake site for this project that, as I say, by my calculations, is within the conservancy itself. However, I guess the proponents perhaps have some insight or knowledge into what is going to happen here that the public may not be privy to, but on their maps they list the conservancy boundary as temporary. I guess we can look forward to another boundary change. We went through that process in the Upper Pit.

This is a very valuable fisheries river, the Klinaklini. Fish that occur below the intake include chum, chinook, sockeye, pink and coho — around 20,000 coho or more, perhaps. All five species of Pacific salmon are included in this river and use this river to reproduce their kind, as well as steelhead, cutthroat and Dolly Varden, a threatened species. There's also a stock of oolichan that use this watershed.

I think the speaker after me may have something to add to that, but I just wanted to say, with regard to that, that the foundation of first nations culture and tradition in the area…. It's an ancient aboriginal resource site that's at the head of the Knight Inlet, at the mouth of the Klinaklini River, along which I assume there's going to be a power line from this project.

First nations families return each spring to the village of Dzwadi to harvest and process oolichan oil, which is highly prized as food and as a trading commodity. The village is part of — and here I sympathize with the minister because I have no idea, really, how to pronounce this name — the Da'naxda'xw–Awetlala First Nation. Historically, Dzwadi was their largest village site.

The proponent of this site, which will be within a conservancy unless the government is going to make some changes — as I say, we've been through that process before — says there's an impassable barrier to anadromous fish — that is, fish that run to sea and back — below the intake.

Now, when I look at this, I see that this barrier is about 14 kilometres above the powerhouse and about two kilometres below the intake. This means, in other words, that 14 kilometres of this highly productive river will be diverted, once again, by a power project. Apparently, it's okay with the minister that there's a conservancy there.

So 14 kilometres of river supporting all species of Pacific salmon, as well as the steelhead and Dolly Varden, will be subject to habitat destruction from diversion. You have the low water that happens as a result, the reduced wetted width of the streams and reduced productivity of the invertebrates upon which these fish feed.

Also, one can expect the negative effects on the recruitment of young salmon in the area from reduced spawning area, warmer water temperatures and reduction of rearing habitat — all serious issues that were canvassed fully in the Upper Pitt project.

The minister is very aware of that and yet seems to be putting the green light, as far as conservancies go, with regard to having an IPP situated within it, one that, I'm told, is about half the size — it's up to, I believe, 700 megawatts; way larger than the Upper Pitt — of what Site C would be.

So we're not talking about a small run of the river. In fact, I believe it's the largest one so far planned in this province. And remember, Madam Speaker, that when the government announced the Great Bear rain forest agreement in 2006, they said there wouldn't be any IPPs in the area, except for local use by first nations or other communities.

We can see they're ready to go back entirely on that commitment. This project, if it goes through…. I certainly hope it doesn't, because it's not a green project at all. It's far less green even than the Upper Pitt was. Certainly, that's not the commitment that the minister made back then.

As the member for Vancouver-Hastings mentioned, the conservancy along the Klinaklini has been put in schedule F, which you kind of wonder about. It allows for roads to go through it, and we know a road needs to go through to the IPP. Is that the reason it's in schedule F? I hope the minister will stand after and assure us that's not the reason, and I hope he will tell this House why it is in schedule F.

Another concern that I have about this bill is that none of the conservancies will be official until there's more consultation. Why is the government bringing a bill forward to this House without the consultation that needs to take place having been done? There is concern amongst groups, environmental groups…. In fact, the government's looking at changing boundaries afterwards with orders-in-council or perhaps regulations.

That isn't the first time that we've seen that modus operandi recently from this government either, where we don't get much in the way of details at all in this House about bills. Everything is going to be done later by regulation, and that's not acceptable. The minister and the government should provide all the information on just what we're debating so that there are no after-the-fact deals done.

My concern, as I said very clearly, is about the integrity of these conservancies. I'm hoping that the spirit of the agreement in 2006 will be fully upheld by this government and that we're not going to see any backdoor deals that are going to make a mockery in any way of that agreement.

G. Coons: It's an honour to rise and talk about Bill 38, the Protected Areas of B.C. (Conservancies and Parks) Amendment Act. There are some concerns, and I guess there are three that I would like to touch on. One is the Cascade-Sutslem conservancy on the central coast; a couple, the Khtada Lake conservancy and the Khyex conservancy, both on the north coast; and finally the Dzawadi–Upper Klinaklini River conservancy.

I'll start off with the Cascade-Sutslem conservancy. We brought that up in the House probably about a month ago, where there was a concern about this and a concern about the Nascall River independent power project happening and the concern from the Heiltsuk band council and those in Bella Bella that the conservancies weren't going through. So it's nice to see it has gone through to this point in time.

There are many questions, as we've said. We're standing here supporting this bill, but we do have questions about the maps and about the commencement section and how it's going to roll out. As we look back over the last couple of years and the designation of the Great Bear — with myself coming from the North Coast, which encompasses both the central coast and the conservancies on the north coast — it was a good feeling among those involved that this was happening. But there are lots of questions. Again, the minister refers to the maps, but it's hard to try to interconnect them and see how that's working.

Again, with the Nascall and the Cascade-Sutslem conservancy, we hope that that is the end of it, that it has been designated and that there will not be any orders-in-council or further negotiations to put that region at threat with the independent power producer.

The second one I'd like to discuss briefly are the two conservancies along the Skeena River. It was about Christmas, I believe, when I was home, and I noticed in the local newspaper that there were three little ads from Synex power talking about power projects under 50 megawatts that apparently were going to go into three areas that could affect the Skeena tributaries. That fell among the Khyex River, the Khtada River, Ayton Creek and Arden Lake. These ads in the newspaper had about a month for people to respond.

I brought that out to the community, and there were major concerns about this. Now I see that the conservancies have been legislated around the area, but we still can't get the maps to overlap and see how it affects the potential projects. In the community, the regional district didn't know about this proposed IPP from Synex, the three projects. The Lax Kw'alaams band, whose reserve part of the transmission line was going to go through, didn't know about it. So there were concerns.

Jim Culp, with the Skeena watershed stewardship society, wrote to the Premier and to some of the ministers with his concerns about this project and other projects within the region, that no land or water tenure should be granted because of the total lack of information. Information was not available. He suggested that before approvals are considered, there needs to be a much more thorough and open public consultation process, which was not happening and did not happen. There needs to be research done about the effects and the economic benefits, ecological evaluation and the impact on species.

The Skeena stewardship society had major concerns, especially with future run-of-the river projects in the Skeena region and their concerns about our rivers being privatized for electric power production.

Something I look forward to is having the time, hopefully, to look at the designation of the conservancies and how it affects the constituents that I represent in the Skeena region.

The last one — and my colleague from Maple Ridge talked about it — is the Klinaklini project. Basically, as he said, this is on the Klinaklini River. I found it interesting when I went back to, I guess, 2006 and looked at some of the maps back then and some of the conservancies. There were two of them. There was the Upper Klinaklini River Conservancy and the Dzawadi-Klinaklini Estuary Conservancy, which is at the head of Knight Inlet. It seems that the estuary conservancy isn't listed as one of them that was designated, and it's one of the most significant estuaries in coastal B.C.

From my reading back in 2006, it said that this was legally designated as a Dzawadi-Klinaklini Conservancy, and now we're dealing with the Upper, so there's a bit of confusion on my part. I haven't seen the maps, and I'm trying to sort out the impact of this power project on this very special, ecologically significant estuary.

Again, we look at the one reason…. My colleague brought up some of the fish species involved. One is the oolichan. On this topic, it's been documented that the oolichan spawn in about 33 rivers but only in about 14 or 15 on a sustained basis. These major rivers where they do return to spawn in a sustainable manner are the Fraser, the Skeena, the Nass and the Klinaklini.

It's an important aspect to first nations culture as part of the grease trails that have happened in the past and continue to happen. There've been several reasons for a huge drop in the oolichan runs since 1994. In a lot of rivers there's virtually been no returns for the past couple years. In 2000, I believe, the Stikine, the Skeena, the Kitimat, the Kemano, the Bella Coola, the Kingcome and the Owikeeno rivers had no return all. This river, the Klinaklini, is a major oolichan run for a lot of first nations in the region.

When I was in Bella Coola meeting with the Nuxalk, they basically haven't seen oolichans for eight or nine years. It's a real impact on the community, on the elders. It has huge health impacts. Here we're looking at a river that is one of the most important oolichan runs in B.C. It has unsurpassed importance to the coastal first nations. This estuary, which doesn't seem to be designated but seems to have been designated back in 2006 — it doesn't seem to be in Bill 38 — is something that needs to be preserved, and I hope this legislation will do that.

They need to be protected from run-of-the-river projects, and we need more research done on that. As my colleague mentioned about the Klinaklini, it's going to have two 180-kilometre 230-kilovolt transmission lines. There's going to be a powerhouse and power tunnels, waste rock disposal, concrete batch plants, water supply, sewage disposal and construction power supplies.

They need road and barge access, and they need to build a small community for 700 or 800 people, which is going to have a huge impact on the region. As mentioned before, there are going to be 18 kilometres of tunnel over 27 feet in diameter and a weir that is a huge weir, approximately 30 metres in height, and a power line of 150 kilometres. This is on a river that has significant importance to the first nations of the region. These are some of the questions that we need answered as we go through Bill 38.

I hope that as we look at the maps and get the specifics and are able to overlap what we need to overlap to understand where we're going, where we're headed with this, that this will be a good-news story for first nations and stakeholders that were promised the commitment of the Great Bear rain forest and land use plans on the north and central coast.

I have major concerns at the commencement section, where several sections of this bill will be brought into force through orders-in-council, but I hope that as the minister goes through the bill and we have an opportunity to go through it clause by clause, we will look at the bill in its whole. Hopefully, it will be a good-news story and not just another hiding behind the curtains of a good-news announcement.

With that, hon. Speaker, as my colleague said before, we're going to support this, but with lots of questions and trepidation.

Hon. B. Penner: Seeing no further people getting up to speak to the bill, I would, then, like to make a few closing remarks.

As I said in my opening remarks in moving second reading, this legislation represents, I think, just about the single biggest number of new conservancies and protected areas in B.C.'s history being established at one time in law. Certainly in terms of area, it's very close, but in terms of the individual numbers of new protected areas, I believe it is the largest single number at one time.

I just want to respond to a couple of comments that I did hear from members opposite. The critic for Environment was then echoed by a couple of the other MLAs who spoke, saying that unfortunately, they claim, they're not able to find maps showing where the conservancies are located. If they had only bothered to do their homework, they'd find that by going to the ministry website, www.env.gov.bc.ca/pac/parks_amendments_2008, you will actually find electronic versions of the maps. In short, you just go to the B.C. Parks website, and you can find them there.

However, if you're not technologically inclined and not able to download these kinds of maps that I'm holding in my hands — it took me a couple of minutes to do it — you need only walk down the hallway. The members of the opposition would have had to go about 20 yards in order to get legal description maps of the conservancies that we're just debating.

I'm somewhat taken aback that members of the opposition got up here today to criticize the government

for not making maps available without making the effort to walk 20 yards from their office to get the maps, the legal description maps which are always provided to the Clerk's office when legislation of this kind is introduced year after year.

It does appear that the members opposite were woefully ill-informed in their comments, not just with regard to the maps but with regard to some of the other comments that they made. For example, the MLA for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows made a number of comments about how somehow this legislation is giving a green light to establishing some large run-of-river projects. He obviously hasn't read the legislation, which has already defined what a conservancy is.

Certain low-impact run-of-river projects are permitted within a conservancy if they're to serve a local purpose. On our side of the House we think that is potentially beneficial for first nations communities, who hope to wean themselves off of diesel generation, fossil fuel and greenhouse gas–producing sources of electricity.

The legislation and the definition of "conservancy" does permit that, Mr. Speaker, as I believe you are aware, but unfortunately, it appears, members of the opposition are not. It's not the first time they've made some comments that seem to reveal rather a lack of research on their part.

The maps are available for people who want to look at them. They're available at the Clerk's office, and I thank the Clerk's office for always providing that service to members of the Legislature. They're available through the B.C. Parks website. I commend them to members if they want to go take a look at them.

Second reading of Bill 38 approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. B. Penner: I move now that the bill be referred to Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 38, Protected Areas of British Columbia (Conservancies and Parks) Amendment Act, 2008, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call second reading of Bill 39, Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Vehicle Emissions Standards) Act.

Mr. Speaker: I think we'll take a five-minute recess. The House stands recessed for five minutes.

Hon. B. Penner: I move that Bill 39, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Vehicle Emissions Standards) Act, be read a second time. It's my pleasure to recommend this legislation to my colleagues here in the Legislative Assembly.

The Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Vehicle Emissions Standards) Act is an important part of the suite of climate action initiatives coming before the House during this spring session. The legislation will result in significant reduction in emissions from automobiles; provide fuel cost savings for drivers; offer consumers with more environmentally conscious choices without compromising vehicle performance, reliability or safety; and ensure that consumers continue to be able to choose from a full range of vehicles.

It will provide the authority to follow through on this government's commitment in the throne speech to adopt California-equivalent greenhouse gas or GHG emissions standards for light-duty vehicles, including passenger cars, SUVs, minivans and light-duty trucks.

The act will also provide authority to set requirements with respect to zero-emission vehicles, something known as ZEVs for short.

We've already heard about hybrid electric vehicles, and in Victoria you can certainly see those on a daily basis. They're quite prevalent now in the taxi fleet. I myself bought a hybrid electric vehicle about three years ago.

Back in 2005 in British Columbia, when I purchased my hybrid, there were only 1,500 hybrid electric vehicles in operation in the province. Today, just three years later, there are now 8,000 registered hybrid electric vehicles, according to ICBC. That represents an increase of 560 percent in just the last three years.

Our government has moved with a number of initiatives, including up to a $2,000 break in the provincial sales tax, to encourage individual ownership of such vehicles. As well, the B.C. government has made a commitment to only purchase passenger vehicles that are hybrid electrics for our government fleet. As a result, today British Columbia operates the single largest hybrid electric vehicle fleet in the entire country, with about 560 hybrid electric vehicles in the government fleet.

We all know that hybrid electrics are only a bridge technology, although the Minister of Revenue reminds me that he recently purchased one for his wife — and with good results, I'm led to believe. We know that the Premier has also enjoyed a hybrid electric car for his personal use.

The point is that hybrid electric technology is just a bridge technology to get us to where we want to go. It's a major technological advance, which is one of the reasons our government has been a keen supporter of that technology. But something calls ZEVs, or zero-emission vehicles, are seen by others as, perhaps, a further evolution or advancement that would be desirable from an economic and environmental perspective.

ZEVS are vehicles, such as all-battery electric vehicles, that emit no GHGs or air pollutants. Together the

GHG emissions standards and the ZEV requirements enabled by the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Vehicle Emissions Standards) Act will accelerate the implementation of new technologies and new passenger vehicles introduced in B.C. while translating into significant fuel cost savings for drivers.

Part 2 of the act focuses on GHG emissions standards in response to the public's desire for climate action without a decrease in vehicle options. The transportation sector is responsible for 38 percent of B.C.'s total GHG emissions. Reducing GHG emissions in transportation is therefore a key component in meeting B.C.'s GHG reduction target of 33 percent below current levels by 2020.

The standards will reduce GHG emissions by about 22 percent and 30 percent in an average new car in 2012 and 2016, respectively, relative to current models. When fully implemented in 2016, the GHG emissions standards will achieve a reduction of personal vehicle GHG emissions of nearly 600,000 tonnes annually in British Columbia over and above the reduction expected from the new fuel efficiency standards adopted nationally in the United States and committed to as a minimum by the Canadian federal government.

Section 2 sets out the core requirements that manufacturers must meet under part 2 of the act — namely, that automakers be required to achieve set GHG emissions standards on a fleet average basis. The act will regulate two weight classes of vehicles as a fleet, each one having its own annual standard. Pickup trucks weighing over 8,500 pounds will be excluded, since many of them are used for work-related purposes. Similarly, large passenger vans over 10,000 pounds will also be excluded.

The fleet average approach to emissions will ensure that B.C. drivers continue to have access to a wide variety of vehicles. The act allows manufacturers to keep selling vehicles that exceed the allowed emissions for that model year provided they sell enough low-emission vehicles to meet the new fleet average standards.

The model year reports, required under part 2, will establish whether or not a manufacturer's fleets have met the standards. If a manufacturer's fleet average emissions are above the applicable standard, the act allows for the use of credits to balance the amount of emissions exceeding the standard. Manufacturers who fail to keep their fleet GHG emissions below the standard will have five years after their model year report due date to earn and use credits for that model year. Credits will be earned when a manufacturer's fleet average emissions are below the applicable standard.

Although vehicle manufacturers will be able to trade credits among each other and to bank credits from one model year to the next, they won't be able to buy reduction credits from anywhere else. The objective is to bring about a better choice of low-emission vehicles.

The GHG emissions standards will become more stringent each year, strongly encouraging manufacturers to introduce technologies that will reduce GHG emissions from their fleets. The act will ensure that the power system, aerodynamics and air-conditioning of new cars delivered to B.C. are optimized to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as much as possible.

The GHG emissions standards are ambitious and yet practical. There are 2008 model year vehicles operating just outside the Legislature today that meet or exceed California's 2016 standards. B.C. will enact regulations to enforce the GHG emissions standards when, but not before, California brings its regulations into effect.

At that point B.C. will join 17 U.S. states that have adopted or are in the process of adopting identical standards. Six other states are actively considering the standards, and 12 out of Canada's 13 provinces and territories have committed to the standards, with Quebec now in the process of making final revisions to its draft regulations. Together these states and provinces represent nearly half of all new car sales in the United States and Canada.

Part 3 of the act allows for zero-emission vehicle requirements to be enforced in British Columbia. Unlike the GHG emissions standards enabled by part 2 of this act, these requirements refer to emissions of both greenhouse gases and air pollutants.

Like the GHG emissions standards, the zero-emission vehicle, or ZEV, requirements will apply to two fleet types or weight classes. Manufacturers will be obliged to include a predetermined number or percentage of ZEVS in their new vehicle deliveries to British Columbia.

The act will provide authority to allow the ZEV requirements to be met with partial ZEVs. Partial ZEVs will include vehicles that have very high-efficiency power system technologies, such as plug-in hybrids. This is a type of vehicle that the Ministry of Environment hopes to experiment with later this year. As well, partial ZEVS could include the use of hydrogen in an internal combustion engine and the best of current hybrid technology.

Under part 3, manufacturers will be required to report on the inclusion of ZEV or partial ZEV vehicles in their B.C. vehicle fleets. As with the fleet emissions standards enabled by this act, manufacturers will earn credits for delivering more ZEVs than required for a specific model year. They will, similarly, be able to apply credits where they have fallen short of their ZEV requirements.

Section 7 of the act will provide authority for manufacturers to generate credits for deliveries of ZEVs into B.C. even if not required to do so under this act. These manufacturers would be able to sell these credits to larger-volume manufacturers bound by the ZEV requirements. This will encourage and reward technological innovation.

To ensure compatibility with the GHG emissions standards and ZEV requirements in California and elsewhere in North America, automatic administrative penalties are provided for when a manufacturer fails to meet the act's core requirements relating to GHG emissions standards or ZEV requirements. These penalties will be monetary and will be set by regulation.

The use of administrative penalties has been shown to be effective and to promote compliance in a way that does not rely on traditional prosecutions in the court

system. However, the option of prosecution for contraventions under this legislation is also authorized to deal with any particularly serious breaches that may occur. These compliance provisions will be in line with other environmental legislation already administered by the Ministry of Environment.

Protection of confidentiality, trade secrets and commercial information is provided with reference to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The act also ensures that key information on manufacturers' compliance with GHG emissions standards and ZEV requirements will remain in the public realm.

B.C. residents are already seeking more options in reducing their GHG and air pollutant emissions without compromising their vehicle choices. The Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Vehicle Emissions Standards) Act recognizes and responds to this demand.

Enough mature vehicle technologies currently exist to allow the standards and requirements enabled by this act to be met without compromising the performance, reliability or safety of vehicles. In other words, the standards can be met in a cost-effective way for both industry and consumers.

With that, I'll take my place, and I'll wait to hear what other members of the House have to say.

S. Simpson: I'm pleased to join this debate on Bill 39. I am the designated speaker for this bill.

As the minister stated, Bill 39, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Vehicle Emissions Standards) Act, is here for the purpose, really, of setting fleet emissions standards, determining how they're going to be achieved, allowing for credits around those fleets and making some progress on zero-emission vehicles that could be included in those fleets, as well as establishing a set of penalties.

Now, this bill is much like most of the bills, certainly, that we've seen in regard to greenhouse gas emissions or reductions from the Minister of Environment. This is another piece of enabling legislation. Enabling legislation, different from what I would call substantive legislation, is legislation that sets a framework for how decisions may be made, that makes determinations or sets a framework for how an issue gets addressed, whether the issue, in this case vehicle emission standards…. We've seen it with cap-and-trade. We've seen it with other pieces of legislation as well, and we will see more of it over the next couple of weeks, I'm sure.

So what the bill does…. The bill doesn't talk to the detail about what these standards might look like, how they might be applied, how they determine how vehicles fall into certain categories or any of a variety of questions around that.

There's no doubt that there is a time and place for enabling legislation. All governments use it, and that's understandable. There's a time and a place for legislation that builds the frameworks that allow government to move forward and take action when they need to take action.

The problem here, though, is that rather than being used in a selective way, as I believe that enabling legislation should, to position the government to be able to take action, this is a trend with this minister and with this government in regard to all of these initiatives related to climate change. Instead, we have this whole structure of legislation that deals with a wide variety of issues in a relatively vague way in terms of substantive issues. They're very vague about how those substantive issues will be dealt with. Instead, they say that regulation will be used.

What regulation means, as you know, is that the minister, the Premier, the cabinet will make the decisions in the cabinet room about what those regulations might look like and about how in fact they get applied, as well as what the definitions on a large range of these items might be.

The problem with that — and it comes back to a point that I have made before and that I will certainly make again when there are other opportunities over the coming weeks in this Legislature — is the problem that I think continues to be the biggest difficulty with the government's plans around climate change, or certainly their framework around climate change. To suggest that there's a plan here, I think, would be a stretch at this point.

The problem is that the government has chosen not to talk to British Columbians about this. They have chosen to keep the doors closed. They have chosen to deal with cabinet secrecy. They have a cabinet committee. They have a secretariat that answers to that committee. Consequently, its activities are also secret and free from freedom of information.

There was consultation, I believe — an early consultation, some 175 groups. The Premier at different times said that that information would be made available. I would note that that consultation and other things, I'm assuming, led to the development of Bill 39, as it led to the development of other bills in the package of initiatives that have been coming forward.

So we get 175 groups that get talked to, or who talk to the government, provide advice. The Premier is asked whether he will release the list of those groups. Certainly, we haven't seen that list. From talking to some of the journalists who have been making those requests, they haven't seen that list of who those 175 groups are either, even though the Premier has said on numerous occasions that the list would be made available. We're still waiting for that list. Maybe the Minister of Environment would like to make that list available to us as well.

What we have in Bill 39 reflects that. It's another piece of legislation that has been developed in isolation from British Columbians. That becomes a problem, but it's a problem that I think is leading to some of the growing concern we're seeing from people around the province as to whether the government really has a handle on what it's doing here around the climate change file and whether they actually have a handle on how they're going to proceed.

We'll be enlightened a little more, presumably, over the next few weeks — as we hear the Climate Action

Team's recommendations in July, when we see what the western climate initiative says about cap-and-trade as early as next week and then, in a more complete way after that, in recommendations they'll make. And we'll get a sense, presumably, from the government sometime after that as to how the government feels about whatever that package of recommendations from the western climate initiative is.

We've been told that there will be a climate change plan that will put all these pieces together. Presumably, sometime — I expect after the session's over — the Premier will announce what that plan is, and British Columbians will get a chance to see what that plan is all about.

Now, people might say: "Well, the government's got to have the right to write some regulations. So what's wrong with that?" Just to kind of touch on that, I want to go into the bill itself, the legislation.

If I look under part 2 of the legislation, which deals with vehicle fleet emission standards…. Just to pick a section here, the "Requirement for vehicle fleets to meet GHG emission standards," this clause, this paragraph or section, section 2, says:

Now, I don't know if anybody knows what that said, but the big issue here…. That section there is a couple of paragraphs, and that essentially establishes what a fleet looks like. So you say, "Okay. Well, that's good," but if this was substantive legislation, it would say much more than that.

If you go back into the bill — back to page 15 of the bill, or section 26 — this gets into the eight or nine pages of the regulations, which is long lists of the requirements. To give you some sense of what the regulation says, for you to enact that piece of the legislation that I talked about, the cabinet, in the cabinet room, with the door closed, has the ability to establish what is to be considered a vehicle fleet of a manufacturer in relation to a model year. So they'll decide what a vehicle fleet is, deeming what motor vehicles are to be or not to be part of that fleet. It doesn't get determined by the manufacturer. It will be determined by the cabinet as to what is or isn't in the fleet.

It will deem what determines what a vehicle that's been "delivered by a manufacturer for sale or lease in British Columbia" is, including vehicles "that are delivered in British Columbia for a purpose other than sale or lease." So it gets to decide what's a vehicle for sale in British Columbia. It gets to decide about "excluding classes of motor vehicles, including classes based on the expected use of the vehicle…." So they could decide to exclude vehicles from this. This is what the regulation allows the cabinet to do.

It allows it to establish emissions standards for the fleets, "including, without limitation, (i) establishing alternative standards for vehicle fleets…." What those alternate standards might be…. We don't know what that means. Maybe we'll find out at some point.

And then, "…providing that the application of an alternative standard to a particular vehicle…is subject to approval," and then it goes into a long list of how the cabinet can deal with what are accepted emission values of any type of a motor vehicle.

It can determine the methodology by which a fleet's average GHG emissions are to be determined. It establishes matters or circumstances in relation to which approval is required in establishing the process that applies to those approvals. It sets up the credit system, and a big piece of this legislation looks to allow fleets to apply credits across different types of fleets within a manufacturer's body of vehicles.

It determines the number and the value of the credits generated in relation to any fleet so it can decide what is a credit and what isn't a credit for any given vehicle or model year. It puts the conditions on for the application of credits. It decides if credits can expire or not. It decides whether credits get to reduce their value.

It creates the opportunity to transfer credits between manufacturers. So presumably, they can buy each other's credits in some way. We'll find that out maybe at some point. It puts all limits or conditions respecting the transfer of credits between manufacturers. Then it goes on with more lists. The point here is that this bill tells us almost nothing about the substantive pieces of what will actually be done in terms of vehicle emission standards, and that's a problem.

Now, we do have some idea, because the state of California, which this is me-tooing — this legislation is largely there to me-too the state of California and their work — has taken a very different approach to dealing with the question of vehicle emission standards, dealing with the whole question, actually, of climate change. They've taken a very open process. The state of California has been extremely transparent. They have produced volumes and volumes of data and information and analysis, which is all available to the public and to any of the interests and which goes into some detail in analyzing how they've got to some of the positions that they've taken.

A lot of work has been done in California, and all of that work has, in large part, been made available to the public so that the public has an understanding about what in fact is being talked about here and, more importantly, as well as understanding what's being talked about has been given the opportunity to talk about that with senior officials and with decision-makers of the government. None of that has occurred around any of these matters related to climate change in British Columbia, and it certainly hasn't occurred in regard to the Vehicle Emission Standards Act either. This is only one of many pieces of legislation where that would be the case.

I'll get back to talking a little bit about California and the effectiveness of this legislation and the challenges the legislation or the law will experience in being effective, based on what California's own

assessments are of what they believe is going to happen in their state around what we can assume is going to be very close to the same law or the same standards that California will have in place.

Of course, I would say at the outset that I certainly understand why we would me-too California on this. British Columbia isn't a big enough market and a big enough place to do this kind of thing on its own. I think that's a reality. We either need to have a national program in Canada, where we do it across Canada, or we need to have other partners. California makes good sense as a partner on the west coast for us. I don't have any problem with the idea that we would me-too what California may be looking at doing.

Also, as I said, they've done an awful lot of work on this. Hopefully, whatever that regulatory process is going to be for the cabinet decisions that will be made, they will, in fact, learn something from what California has done in the decisions they'll make and the way they'll move forward around this piece of legislation in putting these standards in place.

Part of the problem, of course, with California — and this is something we'll need to watch closely, as I'm sure the minister certainly knows and as, hon. Speaker, I'm sure you're aware — is that it is not smooth sailing in California right now on the vehicle emission standards. The EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, in the United States has challenged California's ability to do this. There is litigation going on right now between the state of California and the Environmental Protection Agency, the national body, over jurisdiction questions and the ability to do this.

Who knows how long it will take to resolve that litigation. I'm anticipating — and I expect that there are many who are hopeful in the United States on this issue — that after November, when there's a new administration in the United States that possibly has a different view on some of these matters, that maybe the EPA will take a different approach in terms of their relationship with California and either allow the state to proceed with emission standards or look at some national model.

Of course, if there is a national model in the United States, then presumably we need to rethink that, too, as to whether we're me-tooing a U.S. model. We'll also have to see what the response of our government in Canada would be to potential changes in priority around issues related to climate change that may arise in the United States because of a changed administration in the White House.

So we have this situation where we're going to me-too the California legislation, the California law and the California approach. We're not sure what that is, because while California has done an extensive amount of work…. They're pretty ready to go. They have this challenge now with the EPA that they need to move forward on.

I'm going to come back and talk a little bit about the effectiveness of this in a bit. At this point, I want to get back and jump to another issue for a minute, which is the zero-emission vehicles.

Again, as we saw, and as I referenced in regard to the fleet vehicles and the breadth of regulation that's expected there, we have a very similar situation with zero-emission vehicles, including having the cabinet essentially determine what is and what isn't a zero-emission vehicle or a partial zero-emission vehicle. That will now be a cabinet decision based on what the regulations say. I am hoping they'll get some good advice about that, but they're going to have the capacity to do that and to decide what that means in terms of any breaks around that related to zero-emission vehicles.

Now, partial zero-emission vehicles, or hybrids…. We know that there's a growing acceptance of hybrids. They are a significant step in the right direction to reduce emissions. There's no doubt about it. Thankfully, we're seeing increased numbers of them on the roads. Hopefully, the more of them that we see available and on the road, the prices will come down. They will become more available to more British Columbians as the price point gets down closer to the $20,000 number than the $30,000 or $35,000 number that Priuses and Camrys are floating at today for base models.

If we can get that number down significantly lower, then I think you'll find many more people who will avail themselves of the opportunities to look at hybrids and purchase those. But what we do know, of course, is that right now they are not in the price range for an awful lot of people. Because of that, we need to actually have strategies that create other opportunities to reduce vehicle emissions, which aren't necessarily included here. That's a strategy around the reduction of vehicle emissions from used cars. I'll talk about that maybe a little bit in a while.

I want to get back for the moment to the issue around zero-emission vehicles and what we know. We know there's been a lot of talk about them, and there's been a lot of talk about electric cars in British Columbia. We've seen a number of electric cars here, and there have been companies in British Columbia that have been producing electric cars.

However, part of the problem we have is that the government has not provided the support in order to allow those vehicles to stay here, and it's unfortunate. I would quote from an April 13, 2008, article in the Times Colonist here in Victoria. In that article it talks about the Dynasty Electric Car company, which has been manufacturing electric vehicles since 2001 at a facility on Annacis Island in Delta, said their general manager Danny Epp.

What Danny Epp said…. To give you some background, Dynasty created and sold about 200 electric vehicles a year, primarily to the U.S. markets. That's where their vehicles are being sold. But now what we know, of course….

S. Simpson: I see the minister is a little sensitive because he's the one who messed this deal up. The Minister of Transportation is the one who messed this up and cost us our business, so the company's closing.

It's closing its doors, and it blames the negative attitude of both the federal and provincial governments. What's happened, of course, is that an automotive manufacturer in Pakistan has purchased the company's assets and its intellectual property.

So part of what happens here is that when we talk about trying to meet the challenges of climate change, one of the things that we need to look at doing is, in fact, advancing technologies and looking at technologies that we can develop here in British Columbia, technology that you would hope that we can advance, and we can continue to own. Then we can sell that technology in an effective way.

But the problem…. This is with an electric car, a zero-emission car which the legislation, Bill 39, talks about. It says that, in fact, this automotive manufacturer in Pakistan purchased the company's assets and its intellectual property. What did Mr. Epp say, the general manager of Dynasty Electric Cars? He says: "We won't come back to Canada. We will export back to the U.S."

Mr. Epp said that he wanted provincewide legislation to allow electric vehicles to travel up to 55 kilometres on 60-kilometre roads, similar to Washington State. I'll quote what he ended up saying, though. He said: "We've been faced with regressive legislation that limits the use of the vehicle. The government has wiped out the market. People are not going to buy these vehicles." That's because the government created a situation where the vehicles aren't practical because of requirements around speeds. So that's unfortunate.

We have a piece of legislation, Bill 39, and what do we have here? We have a piece of legislation that talks about zero-emission vehicles, promotes this with regulation. They promote this with regulation. Then what they do, of course…. This is probably the most common thing about the government. This is a government that says one thing. Their rhetoric is there. They greenwash like crazy, and then their actions are exactly opposite. On one side we have a government….

S. Simpson: Well, maybe I'll wait till…. I don't know whether the minister plans to get up and speak in debate. She'll have a chance sometime later.

So we have a government, and what does the government do? The government puts out this piece of legislation and wraps itself in its green flag here. Then, of course, the reality is that it misses the opportunities on vehicles that are trying to develop the technology here in British Columbia. We may be able to sell that technology and export it while keeping good jobs here, but that won't happen in the case of Dynasty cars, because the ministry, the government, chose not to provide that kind of support. That is pretty much endemic of how this government conducts itself around a lot of public policy matters — certainly, public policy matters on these things.

That's part of the problem we have in relation to the zero-emission vehicles. I would hope that the government is going to realize the mistake that they made, that cost us the Dynasty Electric Car company. I hope they're going to recognize that and maybe provide some support, or look at how they begin to provide support, that in fact encourages those kind of companies to stay here. We see that places like Washington State are trying to do that. Maybe British Columbia could do that too, but so far, not much luck. We'll see how we do in the coming months.

Again, it would be very good to know what the expectation is around what levels it takes to be a partial-emission or a zero-emission vehicle, but we don't know that because those numbers aren't in the legislation.

What about the California model? What do we know about this in terms of how they're going to achieve their emission standards? As I said, this is a piece of work that California has been working on — the tailpipe emissions, the vehicle emission standards. They have been working on this issue for a very long time, and there is a huge body of work and data and information available in the state of California on their strategies around tailpipe emissions. What they know is that in terms of getting at the 33 percent reduction by 2020 for us…. If we read the analysis provided by California on their own modelling, it starts to raise questions.

To be clear here, putting vehicle tailpipe emission standards in place is an important thing. It's an important thing in terms of not having those emissions skyrocket. The reality is — and we can look at the California model — that we do know that without regulation, the tonnage per day would skyrocket between 2004, which is the baseline used by California for their work, and 2030. It would skyrocket by…. Oh, the expectation is probably in the area of a couple of hundred thousand tonnes a day. That, obviously, is an unacceptable situation.

So what California's doing is putting in place the emission standards, looking to try to deal with that. But what we know…. I'll read a piece from the California Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board. This is the state of California body responsible largely for dealing with climate change matters. They produced a staff report, the Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking. They did this, of course, with a public hearing, where people got to talk about this. We don't do public hearings on these matters in British Columbia. This was part of a document related to a public hearing to consider adoption of regulations to control greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles.

This goes back to 2004, when the staff produced this report. It goes through and deals with a large number of issues — obviously, economic, social issues, questions around impacts on low-income people. It's a very comprehensive report and certainly worth reading for anybody who is seriously looking at this question of vehicle emission standards.

But when it comes to environmental impacts, it says something that's pretty interesting. I'll just read you this one paragraph: "Staff estimates that baseline emissions today" — and this was in 2004 — "are 386,000 equivalent tons of CO2 a day" and that in 2010

there "will be 430,000 CO2-equivalent tons a day." So they're getting up there. That was what they figured.

Then they say: "Thus with the regulation, emissions will continue to grow from today's levels through 2009, when the regulation takes effect." So they're saying they're going to continue to grow. They're going to get up into that 430,000-ton range until these regulations take effect.

Then it says that while emissions…. It's interesting that they talk about the ability for these tailpipe emission standards to bring down daily equivalents by pretty significant numbers. However, they say that emissions in 2020 and in 2030 will be slightly lower than in 2010, and then they provide a graph that shows that the difference is negligible between what the emissions will be with the tailpipe emission standards in 2030 as to what they are in 2010.

The reason for that isn't that the tailpipe emissions don't work to bring emissions down in vehicles. That's not the problem that we're seeing here. The problem is a different problem. The problem is around the number of vehicles that are on the road. That's where they have a real challenge. They talk about that in the environmental impacts. They recognize that they're going to be able to bring down per-day emissions by significant numbers in 2020 and 2030, but as per vehicle, cutting the amount of emissions by maybe — they're saying — 27 percent in a vehicle, on average.

So that's a pretty important thing. But the problem is, they're saying, that it will have a minimal impact on actually reducing overall emissions to get to their targets. And there's no reason why we should expect…. This doesn't diminish the need to do this and to put vehicle emission standards in place and to do that to reduce our emissions. That's a positive thing. Depending on what the regulations are, it will hopefully be an effective thing here in British Columbia.

But if we're going to hang our hat on that getting down — the 33 percent reduction that the Premier talks about — certainly the California modelling and analysis says that it's not going to happen. It says that instead, it's going to level off the problem somewhat in terms of emissions from vehicles, but it's not going to drive those emissions down.

We face a somewhat similar challenge here in British Columbia, of course, because what we know in British Columbia is that at this point there is no substantive discussion going on about how we reduce the number of vehicles on the road in this province. That's probably best reflected in ICBC's own estimates. ICBC has estimated that they will insure 11 percent more vehicles over the next three years in British Columbia. So we're going to continue to see that growth in vehicles.

The government's own projections on fuel use are going up — a 2 percent increase every year over the next three or four years. So we're going to use increased amounts of fuel. Those kinds of increases in the number of vehicles that are on the road begin to create the problem and the challenge in terms of getting at bringing down emissions through the tailpipe emission standards. So we have a situation where it's going to be very difficult for us to achieve those objectives.

Now, what would be worthwhile — and we'll have this discussion, hopefully, when we get to committee stage — would be for the government to tell the House and through Hansard to tell British Columbians what they expect in the emissions reductions. How do they expect that these vehicle emission standards will contribute to the overall reductions by 2020 — the 33 percent reduction that the Premier has announced? How will this contribute to that? What's the reasonable expectation on what percentage of that 33 percent will be achieved through the vehicle emission standards legislation and the work that would be done on that? That'll be very helpful information.

I mean, we've got some information on…. You know, the fuel tax will take a couple of percent out. We know that on some of the other initiatives there's a couple of percent here, a couple of percent there. We're not seeing 33 percent yet, but we're seeing it in bits and pieces, so we'll be very interested to have the minister tell us in the committee stage what percentage of reductions in emissions we can reasonably expect from the enactment of this piece of legislation.

Now, my concern is that the government doesn't have a clue. That's my concern. We'll see whether there are any answers in the committee stage, but I expect the government has no clue about what they're going to accomplish out of this.

That becomes a bit of a problem. It becomes a problem like a lot of the other stuff, the other initiatives related to climate change, where it's very hard to find out what the modelling is. We asked for that information on how this was modelled, where the background documents are, where the data is to support the work that's being reflected in this legislation.

Unlike the other jurisdictions that we've talked about…. Whether it be California or, for that matter, the western climate initiative, which is a number of U.S. states and the province of Manitoba at this point, possibly with others coming into play — in most of those places we can go and we can look at their websites, and we can get significant information as to what the thinking is in those states around how they get at the climate change challenge.

In almost every case, they've established or they're developing framework positions that they're looking for the public to buy into, and then they will revolve their policy around those framework positions.

We haven't done that here in British Columbia. We've had none of that discussion around what makes sense or doesn't make sense in terms of a framework for dealing with climate change. It'll be interesting to see, when the Climate Action Team comes back in July with their recommendations for 2012 and 2016, whether they begin to lay out a set of recommendations that looks more like a framework, but we won't know that until they report back, and then we'll have an opportunity to look at that, apparently, on the website.

I seem to recall the minister…. When the targets were put in place, I do recall the minister in debate in committee stage telling us that the environmental assessment approach would be what would be used. We would throw whatever those recommendations are up on the website and allow people the standard period of time, 45 days or whatever it is, to comment on those recommendations. So there's not a public dialogue around that, and it is unfortunate that that's where we're at.

If we want the Vehicle Emission Standards Act to be successful, then it has to be in concert and in partnership with a strategy that gets put in place now or that begins to get put in place now to reduce vehicle use and to reduce the use of vehicles generally. That option means, again, improving transit, and we know that the improvement of transit will be an integral part of any success that we see around dealing with climate change.

Now, the Premier — back at the Union of B.C. Municipalities, I believe, when he was musing in his speech there about these issues — talked about doubling the use of transit in British Columbia. They backed away from that position to something somewhat less than doubling at the point where the Premier announced the government's $14 billion wish list.

It announced…. And it's interesting that it backed away. I think he's now talking 16, 17 percent from 12, which is still progress. I would have wished that he would have stayed with this 25 percent number, but it's the Premier's prerogative to change his mind.

S. Simpson: Well, if the Premier, even after he says what he's doing or…. He gets to change his mind, apparently, and to do something different.

We did have this $14 billion wish list, and here's the challenge with that. It's that there's a whole array of items in there that you can spend $14 billion on, a good amount of money to spend on anything. Lots of those are initiatives that deserve support. The question then is: do they actually get built and when?

The province was committing…. Their commitment was something just less than $5 billion of that. We certainly haven't seen the schedule of how that money gets put into play. When I look in the budget documents and I look in the climate change piece…. Of course, this $14 billion was trumpeted as an integral part of the climate change strategy of the government. So when I look in the climate change piece around spending over the next three to four years, the most glaring thing is the actual lack of dollars to begin to actually build this transit — to buy these buses, to build the transit that is talked about.

Now we'll get another budget next year. We'll see whether that one does any better than this one in terms of actually starting to get at the $14 billion. But it's not what we've seen in this budget. We see more than ten times the spending on roads and bridges as is spent on transit, and that's a problem.

The government is relying on significant contributions from the federal government that the minister tells us he is confident will be realized, but we certainly haven't seen that money yet. We know we have a situation where, arguably, the federal coffers are going to get tighter and tighter in the next year or two, and the question about whether that money will come is a real issue. Whether we're going to see the over $3½ billion or so that the federal government needs to contribute to make this work is another matter.

Then, of course, there's the expectation around what TransLink will commit to this. TransLink — the economics of TransLink, the funding and the financing of TransLink — is a challenge, and it would be a challenge regardless of where the responsibility lies. It's expensive, and it will be a challenge.

It doesn't appear to me how, through property tax increases and farebox increases, we're going to be able to do two things: generate the kinds of dollars that it's expected that TransLink will contribute and encourage people to ride transit when you drive the fares up to do it — let alone, of course, the response that you're going to get from property owners when you start loading this on to property taxes. We'll see how that all plays.

You know, it's a wish list. There are lots of interesting projects on it, but again, as I had said before, I suspect it's kind of endemic of this government, which is flashy announcements, pretty good brochures, a remarkable ability by the Premier to come up with slogans. Then not very far after that you start to ask yourself questions over whether it actually is going to be realized. Or is it the last passing fancy before we head to the next one? We'll have to see how that all plays itself out. Clearly, there is concern that we see that.

The other concern, of course, around the transit question…. This is a difficult issue, but it's certainly something I hear in my constituency in Vancouver-Hastings, and I know that other members in other areas where there is public bus service hear it as well. It is issues related to fares.

Of course, there is the question about whether we have the fare structure that we should have. Is it the fare structure that is most equitable? Is it the fare structure that will get the maximum number of people to ride transit, whether it be buses or SkyTrain? Is it the fare structure that works there? There is a significant debate about that. It certainly is our view that the fare structure doesn't work well. It's something that needs to be considered.

When we come back and look at the legislation — when we come back and start to look at what the bill, in fact, tells us — it tells us that we're going to have these emissions standards. It doesn't exactly tell us how it all is going to work, but it does tell us they're going to be put in place, and that's a good thing. We do need to reduce emissions from vehicles.

It tells us that we're going to me-too California, and that probably is a good thing too, because we can't do it here. We certainly haven't done the work here, so we better me-too somebody who has actually done the work, and that would be the state of California.

What has happened, though, and the problem that we have here, is that it's another piece of "enabling" legislation that tells us very little about what the government's real intentions are. We need to wait for rules that are made behind closed doors in the cabinet room. They're rules that we'll read about in the Gazette at some point but will have no input into, rules that the public will have nothing to say about, more edicts from the cabinet room for British Columbians on how to deal with these issues instead of a discussion with British Columbians around finding solutions.

That, of course, is the way that this government practises most of its law-making. It's easier for the government to do that, I suspect. And if you have a certain disdain for this place and the democratic processes here and how we debate, I guess then maybe it makes sense to do that. I don't know, but it certainly has been the case in regard to the legislation that we've seen up to date.

What we need to look at in terms of this when we get to committee stage…. That's what I think I want to talk about a little bit right now — just what's going to go on in committee stage. It's an opportunity to give the minister a heads-up as to where we're going to go when we get to committee stage.

What we're going to talk about when we get to committee stage is all of those regulations — as we will with most of the other legislation, should it get to committee stage. I mean, maybe this won't even get to committee stage. That's possible too. This may be just brought through by closure. You never know. There'll be a long list of them, I'm sure. So maybe it will be brought in by closure so that there will be no proper and democratic debate about these issues. But hopefully, we'll get to committee stage. We'll get to see.

What we'll be asking about and what I'll be asking about in committee stage is…. I'll be going through the range of regulations that are listed here — the regulations that talk about relationships to manufacturers and model years and how they determine those questions; regulations in relation to, as I spoke about earlier, how they determine emissions standards for fleets, how they determine what fleets are, what those standards might look like and how those standards will be developed.

We'll talk about credits. What do credits look like? How are they going to value credits? What's the public process around credits? How will that all work? We'll talk about the regulations in regard to zero-emission vehicles and talk about how we determine what is a zero-emission vehicle and what isn't. How do we determine what a partial zero-emission vehicle is?

There's a lot of talk in here about prescribing things, like "prescribing adjustment factors, related to emissions of greenhouse gas or other prescribed substances, that are to be applied for the purposes of a determination." This relates back to the credits and things.

It's complicated stuff, and we're going to want to know how those credits work, because you could make the case that credits may be like offsets, and they may in fact be a tool to make a lot of money out of credits. You never know.

There's a lot of discussion. There's discussion in terms of the regulations around what the expiration of credits are, the reduction of credits in value over time and how that gets applied, and the transfer of credits between manufacturers. It will be interesting to know whether Nissan and Ford can trade credits back and forth. If one of them has a bigger place in our marketplace here, can they find a way to get credits from elsewhere? How are those credits determined in terms of size of fleets? Lots of questions there need to be answered.

Then there's a whole series of questions around administrative penalties. The legislation talks about the penalties. When I come back and look at the information around penalties, it actually does put some dollar figures on there. That's the one area, and it does talk about some significant fines — a million dollars or a term of not more than six months. So these are pretty significant fines — $200,000 or imprisonment. These fines, largely, are in terms of providing false or misleading information and other matters such as that. We're going to want to talk about those fines, about what the thinking is around how they get applied and don't get applied.

The other piece is the appeals. There are regulations here around the ability to appeal to the Environmental Appeal Board. When we talk about the appeal situation — and we will have some discussion around that when we get to the committee stage — we'll really be talking about how the appeal process is going to work.

How public is that process going to be around decisions? Who gets to file appeals? Who gets to have an interest in those? If the public isn't comfortable with the way a company may or may not be claiming that its vehicles are meeting standards, is there a way for the public or for stakeholder groups to engage in that? We don't know that at this point. We'll get a chance to talk a lot more about that, hopefully, in committee stage, when we get to our committee work.

With that, I'm going to pass this on, I think, to one of my colleagues who I know has some comments to make. I look forward to committee stage, where we, hopefully, will begin to get the answers to some of these questions. Should we be able to do that, we'll be in a place, hopefully, to be supportive of the legislation. Right now it's a bit of an empty vessel, but we'll need to go and move on that and deal with that. At this point I am going to turn this over to my colleague.

Hon. K. Falcon: I wanted to take the opportunity to just make a few short comments with respect to some

of the things that the member for Vancouver-Hastings made reference to, really just to correct the record. I think it's important for the public to know that when people are speaking in this House, the information they're providing is factual and consistent with what is actually on the record.

The member was talking about electric vehicles, and he was saying outright that the province of British Columbia was somehow laggard in allowing these vehicles to be utilized on the road. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, British Columbia is the only province in Canada that is moving forward with regulatory changes that will allow low-speed electric vehicles to operate safely on our roads.

For the benefit of the public, they should know that low-speed electric vehicles are electric vehicles that are limited by the federal government to a speed of 40 kilometres an hour, and there's a good reason for this. These vehicles are essentially, if I could, glorified golf carts. They are vehicles that are used for moving people around, but they haven't got any of the safety equipment that is necessary to protect the public.

What we've done in British Columbia is we've said that we will allow low-speed vehicles on any road in the province up to 40 kilometres an hour without restriction and up to 50 kilometres an hour in municipalities. We will work with municipalities to identify those roads which will be appropriate for these vehicles to operate on.

As I say, our regulatory changes that we're bringing forward and will bring forward will make B.C. the only province in the country that allows low-speed electric vehicles to work. I just have to say that for the member for Vancouver-Hastings to once again say that this is not the case is really unfortunate. I would point out that the environmental record of any government, I think, should be judged on what they do, not what they say. Sadly, we've had an NDP member across the way who talks about our record, and yet our record is one in which we are putting forward concrete changes, which the opposition continually vote against.

They were the opposition, of course, that wanted to pave Burns Bog and move the PNE there. That's something that strikes me as a horrific approach in terms of trying to deal with the environment. He talks about a transit plan and nice brochures. Well, I can say this: this government is moving forward with the largest investment in public transit in the history of the province of British Columbia. We've put $580 million this year and over the next three years towards that plan. It's concrete; it's real.

We've already announced 34 new SkyTrain cars with TransLink that they will be acquiring. We've announced new buses to expand the transit fleet. This is something that I think will make a very significant difference. So I just wanted to get that on the record to make sure that the viewing public understood that the facts are very different from what the member opposite was leading us to believe.

M. Karagianis: I'm happy to take my place and debate Bill 39, first and foremost because, in the course of this session, there will be bills that we will not be allowed to debate on.

This government has invoked a closure motion and, therefore, there will be many bills that will be rammed through during this session that we will not have an opportunity to debate on. So I think it's imperative that I take every opportunity I can to speak to the bills that we will be given an opportunity to speak on, because I know that my constituents expect that of me — to stand in this House and try and continue to stand up for them, especially as we're being denied the kind of access, accountability and open democratic debate that we deserve and that this province deserves.

When I stand and talk to this bill — Bill 39, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Vehicle Emissions Standards) Act — I would have to say, right off the top, that I think this is a movement that is happening North America–wide, and so it is good for us to move towards emissions standards. I think that this is something that's happening elsewhere in other jurisdictions, led most notably by California. I think that it's a good move for us to move in that direction.

As with all things, it is how you implement these changes that are as important as what you are declaring to implement. I know that in California their initiative is to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. I think it's fair for us to at least draw some attention to the fact that the federal U.S. government is currently in litigation with California over that, and California is in litigation with the American EPA over that.

I think we should keep an eye on both of those court proceedings to see exactly what those court challenges will deliver at the end of the day, because I think it's important that whatever we do is enforceable and is not tied up in long litigation or court challenges that go nowhere. That is, I think, a concern and something we should certainly be watching for south of the border to see what transpires there.

I know that, in reading through this legislation, there are a number of questions that came to my mind. I hope to have an opportunity to ask those in committee stage. I hope that will not be denied to us — an opportunity to take this to committee and to investigate more thoroughly. I know that many of the bills that are going to pass in this session won't be open to that scrutiny, so I will look forward to exercising my right at committee on that.

I think one of the things that needs to happen here, as we move into emissions standards, is that we need to make sure that the public comes along at the same rate as we do. One of the concerns I have is that, often, regulations put in place conditions that the consumer can't meet. It's not clear to me what time lines we're talking about here, although I do note that there's a contingency in this legislation that specifically states that B.C. will wait for other jurisdictions to bring in standards first before we enact them.

I'd be looking to the minister to clarify that with us, because if that's true, if we're waiting for California, they're tied up in litigation both with their federal government and with their own lawsuit with the EPA. Does this mean, in fact, that that time line is a long way in the future or a short time in the future? I certainly hope that the minister is going to be able to enlighten us on that aspect of the time line.

I do think it's important that consumers have the ability to be brought along at the same time as these new regulations are put in place. Certainly, it's my concern that working families out there do not find themselves in a place where they are unable to participate in this, and somehow they are going to, in some way, bear a burden of fines or other kind of punitive measures from the government.

You know, most working families in British Columbia — certainly in my constituency — cannot afford new cars. We've seen here in the province of British Columbia a growing circumstance of the working poor. For them to have to see a situation where they would be forced into purchasing a new car in a time line that's unreasonable for them, is going to really cause more hardship on working families here in British Columbia. So the time line is very important to me and to my constituents, because I know that many of the families out there are working hard to make ends meet every month.

We've seen recent statistics from Stats Canada that tell us that we have a growing concern and a growing condition here in British Columbia where people are earning less than they earned ten years ago. Then, it's a hardship for families throughout British Columbia and certainly in my constituency to think that they're going to have to go purchase a new car in order to comply with these emissions standards.

It's important to know when that will take effect and what kind of bearing that will have on working families' abilities to participate. We do all want to participate in initiatives around climate change, but we have to have those options available to us. They have to be affordable; they have to be realistic.

We know right now that even the growing trend in hybridized cars is something that hasn't reached the third generation of used cars yet. Until that realistically happens out there in working communities where lots of people are driving much older cars, they're not going to be able in the foreseeable future to make that transition to buying hybrid cars or any of these cars that offer low emissions.

I'm concerned about how this is going to penetrate the marketplace, when it's going to be available, and when people can actually take advantage of trading up to a low-emission vehicle. I foresee that that's a long way in the future for most working people. So that is one of the concerns that I have here.

It's not clear from the emissions standards that are being discussed here by the government…. They talk about: "…requires motor vehicle manufacturers to have their vehicle fleets for a model year meet a prescribed fleet emissions standard…." It's not clear here whether or not this actually pertains to working trucks and heavy-duty vehicles that are used throughout this province in the oil patch, in the forest industry — what's left of it — or in other sectors like the mining industry. So in those particular sectors, big heavy-duty vehicles are required, and I'm not sure how this applies to that.

There's lots of talk here about ZEVs and other very specific parts of the automobile sector, but I'm not sure how this applies to that and whether or not this, in fact, is going to have some kind of a ripple effect into the economy around the expectation around heavy-duty vehicles.

I know that we've talked in other bills here about emissions standards that would apply to industry as well, and I think this side of the House has been very clear on our desire to see that all of the climate change initiatives that take place here in this province go forward in an equitable way, that they are fair and equitable, and that, in fact, much of that starts with big industry first and not the consumer. So, again, I have some concerns as to how this is going to hit the consumer at the end of the day and what the implications are there.

I know that the Minister of Transportation stood up here and felt pretty defensive about the position here around zero-emission vehicles, electric vehicles, but frankly, I think that this debate is still wide open to lots of new information and new input. In particular, I know that there are lots of other things outside of the very specific automobile, the GEM, which was noted here by my colleague, and the Minister of Transportation's comments around that and the restrictions that the province has put on those.

France has developed an electric car that can travel at the same speeds as other ordinary vehicles on the road, that is perfectly capable of competing with anything else that's available here in a gas-fuelled car. It's quite possible that, in the not too distant future, we'll see some of those automobiles come in here. They are zero-emission vehicles, and certainly, we are going to have to view them in a different way. They're not, as the Minister of Transportation categorized, something that's kind of a glorified golf cart. They are, in fact, real electric automobiles that are high-performance vehicles that are being perfected out there in the marketplace.

So I would hope that our legislation, our policies and this bill — its application — will be open to those kinds of opportunities when they're available. I know that when the Zenn car was first advertised a couple of years ago, I contacted the Langley dealer that had done some promotion on it and was, of course, really disappointed to find out that that vehicle is not allowed here in Canada — that it's, in fact, selling elsewhere in the world, but it's not allowed here.

There's a vehicle that could be very competitive. It's not like this GEM vehicle that has now been constrained to sort of just running around as a commercial use at airports or something. The Zenn car can be a highly competitive automobile as a commuter vehicle. I think that the public should have an opportunity to encourage that. At this point it really just needs some

I, frankly, encourage all of those kinds of opportunities to come forward because I think that we need to have all those options available to us. But first and foremost, if we are going to seriously try and reduce emissions here in this province, we know that there is really only one solution: that's to get people out of their fossil-fuelled automobiles. That means transit.

I think that while we're sitting here looking at emissions standards, which is very supportable — the concept of emissions standards — let's talk about the reality of what will happen in the Lower Mainland over the coming years. One million new people moving to the Lower Mainland with the expectation that they will drive. Certainly, we have a government who's investing in a Gateway expansion program that's going to be there very much to serve whatever portion of those million people will be driving automobiles.

In some ways, we are behaving in a contrary manner here. We have a government saying: "We want to bring in emissions standards. We want to reduce the amount of emissions that are being put into the atmosphere every day by automobiles." We have a bill here that lays out very clearly a framework with no specific details on how or what those actual emissions standards will be or what kind of time line will be put in place for them to be invoked. But at the end of the day, we also have a government that is still dedicated to building more highways and ways to enable a good portion of those one million people coming to the Lower Mainland to drive.

Really what's required, not only in the Lower Mainland but right across this province, is more public transit. That's a popular topic in here for us. I'm sure at any moment I'll hear some jeering from the other side of the House here on this discussion of transit. But, in fact, the only way to offset the growing demands here for the million people moving to the Lower Mainland, the thousands of people moving elsewhere in British Columbia…. The only way to serve the growing demand for them to get back and forth to work, to school is to find ways to invest in transit more efficiently and more effectively than we have.

I know that the minister will talk about the $14 billion plan in Vancouver, but let's be honest. The ridership won't be able to step onto much of that transit expansion till 2020 or beyond. In fact, I canvassed this quite closely in estimates debate with the Minister of Transportation. Some of the transit plan won't be fulfilled till years beyond when the new highways and bridges are open and those million new people and all of the existing traffic has already taken advantage of that.

We see here on the south Island the growing debate around how we are going to put in place a better transit system here, because it's needed. We need to actually move people from the Western Communities where they're living, downtown to where they work, out to the university where they go to school, or over to the base and the graving dock where they work. We need to have a comprehensive plan in place that we can build on incrementally, that a government will invest in. We still are sitting here with a patchwork of plans that is not meeting our needs and is not satisfactory.

I know that in other growing communities like Kelowna, Prince George, Penticton, Kamloops, and throughout the province, there is this need and growing demand for investment in transit to offset the need for people to get to work, to get to school and to get back home and to try to find ways to be less dependent on their automobiles.

I think you can't have on the one hand a plan that's about not investing in transit and investing in highways, or a plan that doesn't put transit in place until ten years from now when we need it, and at the same time have emissions controls and standards that come in here and say: "Well, you're going to reduce your emissions, and you're going to do it with new automobiles that are coming in." The fact of the matter is that working people across British Columbia can't be there. We can't get there at the same time as the government. We cannot see a way that we are bringing the consumer along.

We've already seen that this is a government that's imposing a gas tax at a time when gas prices are racing out of control and creating real hardship on working families across British Columbia, and now we are going to start imposing emissions standards — we expect — although it's not clear when or how or what the time line will be. But if it is being triggered, in fact, by California, as the minister has declared, then when they are done their litigation in the U.S. and they kick that into action, we'll kick ours into action.

Will we actually have all of the options in place for working families to make the shift? I don't know. I don't see that investment taking place now. Instead, I see a government that's prepared to ignore that.

That's my concern with these emission control standards being brought in. There's, again, not enough detail. Like some of the other climate change initiatives of this government, we are left to wonder. It's enabling legislation, with all of the details left to be developed at some other place and some other time.

It's always difficult to get up and support something that's got kind of a big question mark, a big mystery package inside of it, where you're not sure exactly what you're going to get at the end of the day.

If I felt some comfort that this was a government that was investing more in smart growth and in the communities that need it, if I felt that this was a government that had put public transportation really high on their priority list as one of the best aspects of climate change initiatives, if I could see that investment upfront, if I could see that as being a clear part of the climate change plan, then I wouldn't have as many concerns. But at the end of the day, I am concerned.

With a million more people on the roads in the Lower Mainland alone, we can expect that emissions are still going to face us as a huge problem in the

future. Until that transit and public transportation network is in place, which will be well past 2020…. That gives us such a few years, then, to meet any kind of goals that the government has set that I wonder how we're going to be able to accomplish that. I'm skeptical about our ability to do it.

I also think that we need to be making sure that, whatever we are doing here, the public is prepared to come along with us, because if they're not…. If this is going to be something that is only the kind of program that the wealthy can participate in, then we're all the losers.

Working families want to do what's right, but they're busy trying to get through their days. They're busy trying to get through their months. They're often running out of paycheque before the end of the month, and the thought here that now they're going to have to go out and buy some new vehicle, some brand-new automobile, in order to meet emissions standards that have been set by the province is a huge hardship, I think. It's yet one more kind of burden to put onto working families.

I want some assurance from government that the time line and the application of its policies, whatever they are, will be fair and just and that, perhaps contrary to what we've seen so far with the climate change initiatives of the government, it will think about the consumer out there first and foremost rather than its own slogan having to be put into play in some way that looks good but doesn't actually do anything.

I know that the new car dealers have had some concern for some time about this. I'd be interested to know how the government is going to kind of square that off with the new car dealers. I know there's been some concern out there on the time line and the expectations of that and what the punitive measures are going to be, so I'll be looking forward to the government clarifying that for us. Perhaps in the course of the committee debate we can get some clarity on that. It's my hope that we will.

At the end of the day, I want to see something that's realistic, that the marketplace supports and that consumers can join in on without feeling that they are being burdened or overly taxed once again by this government, either in real terms or in theoretical terms.

I'll look forward to the committee stage debate on this. I sure hope we have one. I hope we have an opportunity to debate this at the committee stage. Certainly, I will be supporting it at second reading, looking forward to that opportunity.

D. Chudnovsky: I'm pleased to speak to Bill 39 today and to express some of the concerns that I and my colleagues have about the position that the government has put forward.

I think that the first concern I want to speak to is this spate of enabling legislation that comes before us. Here we are. The people have sent us here. The 79 MLAs are here and raring to go, and government time and again brings us legislation which is just the superstructure, just the generalities, just the intentions, not the details.

I think that if you asked the people of the province, who are very concerned about issues of global warming and CO2 emissions…. Do they want the general case, or do they want the details? Do they want a plan for how we get to where we're going? They would say: "We want the details and the plan."

We have the spectacle of a government that time and again brings us legislation which sets up a situation in which later on — without recourse to this body, without recourse to the representatives of the people — government is free to bring forward the details, bring forward the regulations, bring forward the standards, bring forward the rules and regulations by which the legislation should be and will be judged.

I think that that's a problem. It's a problem in virtually every one of the pieces of environmental legislation which has been put before us in this session — and which, by the way, we don't get to debate in full and probably won't have a committee stage on.

It puts the lie…. Am I allowed to say that? It puts the lie…. I'm not allowed to say that, or I won't say that. It's a contradiction, Madam Speaker, with the contention that government has put forward, for all the years that I've been here and before, that this is somehow the most accountable and the most transparent government in the history of the universe.

This government and its representatives have stood in this House again and again to tell us that it is the most accountable and the most transparent government that anybody's ever seen anywhere. It depends on what day it is and which minister it is — whether it's the most accountable government in Canada or in Canadian history, or whether it's the most accountable and transparent government in the world or in world history. It just depends on which minister it is and what day it is.

But this kind of legislation is brought forward only as enabling legislation and then is pushed through the House without the proper debate, the time for the debate and the time for committee stage in particular. When you have a piece of enabling legislation, it seems to me absolutely fundamental that we have a committee stage so that we can go to the details of the bill and ask about it and ask government really to be accountable for it.

So it is a problem — one that we on this side are very, very concerned about and one which we know that people in the province will be concerned about. They do actually expect their government to be accountable, and they do actually expect their government to be transparent, and they do actually expect us to come here to debate. The people in my constituency think that when the government brings forward a bill, you actually get a chance to ask them questions about it.

Now, this session of the Legislature is a problem. I was speaking on the corner in my constituency. I went to the local supermarket to get some stuff on Saturday. I walked along, and I was stopped by a constituent, and he asked me about the session. He was a pretty well-informed constituent too. He was really, really bugged by this government and what they're doing. Then I told him: "You know, there's legislation that's

going to deem…. All the bills that the government wants passed, it's going to deem them to be passed — without debate, necessarily, or a committee stage — on the last day of the session. This is one of those bills."

This is one of those bills. He was very surprised and very upset about that. So that's….

D. Chudnovsky: The ministers opposite don't like what I'm saying, Madam Speaker. What a shock. That's amazing. The ministers opposite think I should be saying something different. Well, I get to say what my constituents want me to say, and I will continue to do that.

The second concern that my constituents and I have with the legislation is this business about waiting around until everybody else goes first — right?

D. Chudnovsky: I note that my favourite minister is talking about trade unions. He presented himself earlier in the year as a champion of the trade union movement — which, by the way, is one of the democratic institutions of this province — but nobody tells me what to do, except my constituents.

The government brings us a bill on greenhouse gas reduction, and it says, "We're the leaders. We're the green guys. We're the leaders, and we'll all go forward as soon as somebody else does" — so as soon as somebody else goes first. They take a couple of bows, they appear at a couple of events, and they tell us how they are leaders in the fight against greenhouse gas emissions. They're going to go first, as soon as somebody else goes before them. It's an interesting characteristic of the bill.

Now, another problem, and a significant problem for the strategy that's been put forward by this government with respect to vehicle emissions, is that even in California they understand that to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we need to reduce the number of personal cars, personal vehicles that are used. We need to move people towards using public transit. There is a big contradiction between the minister here, who presents himself to the province as somebody who wants to green the province, and his colleague on the other side there, who's the minister in charge of browning the province. There's a significant contradiction between the two of them.

This Minister of Environment brings us legislation which, problematic as it is, is supposed to take us to a reduction in vehicle emissions. I guess we can make the assumption that the minister is sincere in wanting to do that. There are some elements of this bill that might take us in that direction, depending on what it in fact says when they bring in the details of the legislation. But we can accept that there's a sincerity in the position that the Minister of Environment has taken. He's got a pal over there on the other side, the Minister of Transportation, who is in charge of browning the province, because the minister, of course, has a transportation strategy which is almost entirely roads and road-oriented and getting people into cars.

I encourage the ministers to find a time to get together and to talk to one another and to try to resolve that contradiction, because it's something that needs to be resolved. You can't have a vehicle emissions standards act and a strategy that talks about reducing emissions and greenhouse gases and, at the same time, have a transportation strategy which is almost entirely based on road transportation and people in their private cars. So I do encourage the ministers to get together to try and resolve that, because it's a very, very important question that needs to be resolved.

If we look at the transportation strategy that has been brought forward by the minister in charge of browning the province, the Minister of Transportation, we see that virtually every element of it is dedicated to increasing road transportation. The South Fraser perimeter road is the beginning of the strategy in the Lower Mainland that's been brought forward by the minister in charge of browning the province, and somehow he leaves his colleague the Minister of Environment with a challenge. The South Fraser perimeter road will be filling up with cars and trucks, and it will have the effect of increasing the number of vehicles on the roads. That's what is going to happen.

That's what's going to happen as a result of the building of that road. It's going to increase the number of vehicles on the road and thereby increase emissions and be consistent with the analysis that's been done by the California department of the environment, which looks at this question and says that with it, there will be increases in the number of vehicles and therefore an increase in the emissions.

So that's a strategy that the minister in charge of browning the province, the Minister of Transportation, brings. I encourage him to have a chat with his colleague the Minister of Environment to see if they can resolve that problem.

The minister is going to twin the Port Mann Bridge, and he's going to double the width of Highway 1 for a big portion of it. The inevitable result of that…. Those people who look at and know and understand — traffic engineers…. All of them, some of them in favour of the twinning and some of them not in favour of the twinning…. That's not the question. It's not ideological; it's engineering.

The people who look at the impact of the twinning of that bridge and the dramatic widening of that highway, whether they're for or against the project, all say that it will increase the number of vehicles substantially on that road. The road is going to fill up.

That's what all the traffic engineers tell us: the road is going to fill up. As a result of that….

The minister has a quizzical look on his face. He should talk to the engineers. I encourage him to do so, and then have a discussion with his colleague, the Minister of Environment. The inevitable result of

the widening of the highway and the twinning of the bridge, whether you're for it or against it, is that there are going to be more cars there and an increase in the emissions.

So this minister in charge of browning the province over there needs to talk to his colleague, the minister who presents himself as the minister in charge of greening the province. They've got to work that out.

Somehow you've got to work that out, because that's a contradiction that you have to deal with.

The Minister of Transportation, the minister in charge of browning the province, doesn't listen to his mayor. The mayor says we need 500 buses now to deal with the problems of transportation in Surrey and south of the river.

If you've got a strategy for reducing emissions, which the Minister of Environment, who says he wants to green the province…. If you've got a strategy for reducing emissions, you should listen to the mayor of Surrey. She's pretty smart. She understands.

D. Chudnovsky: …for getting people out of their cars if you're going to reduce emissions. But it's a contradiction that this government and these ministers have that they haven't worked out yet.

The Minister of Transportation, who's in charge of browning the place, needs to talk to the Minister of Environment, and they've got to work it out somehow. They've got to work it out, because it's a contradiction.

The needs for rapid transit south of the river that this minister hasn't provided answers to…. The huge percentage of trips that are taken south of the river are taken within that region. They don't come in north of the river.

The minister should know that. He should talk to the engineers. Most of the travel that's done on Highway 1 south of the river stays south of the river, and rapid transit is necessary if we're going to get people out of their cars there.

But the minister in charge of browning the province doesn't have a plan for that. You need to talk to him. The minister needs to talk to his colleague, the minister in charge of browning the province.

What about us in Vancouver who want to get out of our cars, who want to move in the direction that the minister who presents himself as the person who wants to green the province…? We want to be on board with him, and we'd like to increase the number of people getting out of cars in the city.

But the plan put forward by the minister in charge of browning the province tells us that we're going to have rapid transit on the Broadway corridor maybe starting in 2019 or 2020. Great plan. You've got to talk to your friend the Minister of Environment, and you've got to work that out, because there's no plan where we live for getting people out of their cars.

Finally, the icing on the cake that these two ministers, who are putting forward completely contradictory positions, need to get straight is the raising of the cost of public transit. This minister brings us a bill, the purpose of which is purportedly to reduce emissions, and this minister over here is in charge of some people who got a big raise a few weeks ago and who have raised the price of public transit in Vancouver.

Now, who thinks of this stuff? It doesn't make any sense at all. If you're serious about reducing emissions, if you're….

If you're serious about reducing emissions, you've got to get that straight. I encourage the ministers, the two of them — the minister in charge of greening the province, purportedly, and the minister in charge of browning the province — to get together and resolve those contradictions. Before we're going to solve the problem, those contradictions have to be resolved.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Minister of Environment closes debate.

Hon. B. Penner: Mr. Speaker, I thought for a moment that the opposition Energy critic was going to enter the debate, but alas, it looks like that won't be the case.

In closing, I would like to just briefly remark that the last member who spoke seems to be suffering from a severe case of political amnesia, not being aware that the very leader of his party and caucus has spoken in favour, I think — the last time I checked — of building another bridge across the Fraser River. Yet he's just spent the last ten minutes complaining about the idea of a new bridge. So if anybody needs to sort out their position….

Hon. B. Penner: I would suggest it would be the members of the opposition that seem to be in total disarray in terms of what their position is on yet another important piece of policy, in terms of what their party is planning to present to the public.

We've heard from the opposition primarily the criticism, again, that this specific idea about reducing greenhouse gas emissions from tailpipes won't be enough to solve everything. Once again, I have to say

that that's about the only thing I agree with them about. It won't solve everything, but it is an important component of what we're trying to accomplish.

While the member from Esquimalt put forward comments saying: "Will this really solve everything…?" Well, what is the alternative? We have heard no competing alternative ideas from the opposition at all about how to go about reducing greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles. All we are told is that perhaps this won't be enough.

Hon. B. Penner: Mr. Speaker, I know you are anxious to get moving, and so am I, but I just need to note that the other comment was that…. The Environment critic complained that we hadn't done the work here, that we borrowed the information from California. You're absolutely right.

Because of the good relationship the Premier has established with Governor Schwarzenegger, we benefited. B.C. taxpayers benefited by saving on a lot of research that the state of California has already paid for, in terms of the research and analysis about the benefits in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. That's why we predict that these tailpipe standards, if implemented, will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 600,000 tonnes per year by 2016.

Now, that is the benefit of working together. It's far different from what the opposition would like to do, which is throw stones at our American neighbours rather than benefiting from the research they've already done — rather than reinventing the wheel here as we reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Second reading of Bill 39 approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. B. Penner: I move that Bill 39 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 39, Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Vehicle Emissions Standards) Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

Hon. M. de Jong: I would like to introduce to my colleague and members of the committee the folks with me, beginning with Deputy Lorne Brownsey, David Hoadley, John Harper, John Pyper, Julie Williams, and Federico Velasquez and Robert Leece in the immediate rear of the room. I look forward to the discussion we're about to have.

We have less than four hours to complete the entire estimates for Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation for the province of British Columbia, so I do this under protest.

I want to be on record that the changes made by this government to remove close to 60 hours of our estimates time is not a productive thing, and I do not believe it's in the best interests of the people of British Columbia or the government of British Columbia.

As the minister knows, there are many complex issues dealing with first nations in the province. One of the things that I hope to do as the critic is raise some of the specific issues of individual nations within the province, and there will not be time to do that in any adequate way with this time schedule. I just wanted to put that on the record before I begin.

I'm going to begin with a few nuts-and-bolts issues fundamental to the budget, so I'll go with the changes in the budget. I note that this year, 2008-2009, we're seeing $62.127 million budgeted, up from last year's, 2007-2008, $55.673 million. So we've seen an increase of close to 12 percent in the budget. I just want to say also, in the interests of time, that there's been a drop in full-time-equivalents. It's a small drop, only five that I can see.

Hon. M. de Jong: In the order they were presented, I have my own thoughts about the wisdom with which the opposition has chosen to allocate their time in these estimates debates, but happily, those aren't decisions that I have to make. Those are the decisions the opposition

themselves make, and as the member pointed out, we will abide by those decisions here today.

With respect to the budget, the member has identified some alterations. The most significant change relates to additional funding for the implementation of the two treaties involving the six communities that were the subject of debate in the Legislature last fall. That accounts for almost $6 million of the additional funding.

There are some additional minor amounts for negotiated salary increases and, I think, in the neighbourhood of $200,000 for anticipated legal services costs. We've included a minor amount, about $300,000, for advancing some of the work related to ongoing treaty negotiations.

By far the biggest amount relates to implementation costs for the six communities that have negotiated a final agreement.

I'll jump right over, then, because the minister sort of segued to this. Where are we at now? Fifth stage, for instance — what's on the table right now? How many communities, and which first nations are we talking about?

Hon. M. de Jong: The best way might be for me to highlight for the member that the detailed listing for who's in what stage is, of course, on the Treaty Commission website. For us, though, to get to the point, we are looking first and foremost at the moment to the Sliammon, the Yale and the In-SHUCK-ch tables as potential candidates — hopeful candidates — for the next set of final agreements.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. The minister also mentioned that legal services were part of the makeup of the budget, of course. Does that include challenges, like the recent challenge by the Hupacasath First Nation or the challenges around the land removals from 2004 and the more recent land removals for Western Forest Products — 28,000 hectares on Vancouver Island, I believe? On the north Island we saw the Kwakiutl talking about going to court, and others. If the minister could maybe give us some clarification there.

Hon. M. de Jong: These are not litigation-related costs but legal support relating to the negotiation of final agreements.

S. Fraser: Thanks for that to the minister. Can the minister explain who would be budgeting, what ministry…? Where does the money come out for court challenges regarding…? For instance, I spoke specifically around the forestry issues. Is that handled through this ministry, or is it done through the Ministry of Forests? Or is there another entity that might handle that?

Hon. M. de Jong: Firstly, the costs associated with ongoing litigation — I'm doing a quick canvass of the cases that I'm aware of — are not charged as against this budget.

I can further advise the member, in my recollection as Minister of Forests…. Where the litigation involved the line ministry, in that case forestry, I do recall that the costs associated with it did draw from that ministry's budget. So none of the estimates that we are considering here today, again off the top of my head, would relate to sustaining the cost of ongoing litigation.

My recollection is that the member, in general, would look…. We would look to the individual ministry that is at the centre of the litigation. If it is a file involving forestry, then the costs, notwithstanding the involvement to the Attorney General's ministry, would accrue as against that ministry's budget.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. I don't know if the minister can answer this, but how is a budget determined or estimated for potential legal costs? I'm assuming that there's intimate knowledge of the legal challenges that are out there, and then there's not always any way to anticipate legal challenges during the fiscal years that we're discussing here. How is that done? Do you just ballpark something?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, the short answer is that I think it is quite difficult, and it's another reason we try our best to avoid litigation.

I recall, for example, that in 2001-2002 when we were first government, one of the first things I was obliged to deal with were the really astronomical costs that were accruing with respect to the Carrier Lumber case and just how debilitating that was in many ways from the point of view of resources, both monetary and personnel. What would generally happen is the ministry involved would interact with the Attorney General's ministry. There would be some sense of what the schedule for litigation…. The member would know that some of these cases, sadly, go on at length. There are different stages, from the exchange of documents to the discovery to actual hearings and preliminary applications.

So there would be a sense of what the schedule was and what the likely costs…. In some of the larger cases, though, for many of the ministries it can be a significant amount, and again, highlights why we do what we can to avoid those prolonged aspects of litigation.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. The two treaties that have been signed and are before federal authorities now, Tsawwassen and Maa-nulth: was there budgetary consideration for '08-09 specifically to address anything that's come out of the treaties?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the distinction that the member has correctly made is between implementation costs, which I'm advised will largely revolve around surveying activity that needs to take place as part of the overall implementation, and settlement costs…. The allocation does not refer to settlement costs, which don't accrue until the actual effective date.

But while the member has prompted me, I'll take advantage of the opportunity to state publicly on this record how anxious we are — and I suspect the member is — for the federal government to advance with, in the case of Tsawwassen, the ratification legislation that was tabled last fall. We are cautiously optimistic that we'll see debate and passage starting in the next matter of days or weeks and, similarly, for the signing off of the Maa-nulth final agreement for the five communities involved there and the tabling and presentation of settlement legislation.

The ball is squarely in the federal government's court in both of those instances, and we are anxious, as I'm sure the member is, to see those matters advanced through the federal parliament.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. I'm going to go specifically to one piece of the Maa-nulth. We've seen that there were lands that were designated through the Maa-nulth treaty to Maa-nulth nations and access to lands and forestry resources. Now my understanding is that came out of probably, largely Western Forest Products. I think they'd probably be the main controllers at this point of those tree farm licence resources.

How do we see a compensation there in this budget for Western? How do you handle negotiating the removal of something from Western Forest Products?

Hon. M. de Jong: I can confirm and advise the member that insofar as there are discussions taking place with the company or companies, those discussions are ongoing.

To the member's key point, though — are there funds contained within the budget allocation we are discussing today that one contemplates using to address any compensatory aspects of those discussions — the answer is no, there are no such funds contained within this proposed budget allocation.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister. Well, those lands, then…. As the treaty still has to go through the federal process, it will be a year or two yet, I'm thinking, for the treaty itself to really ratify and come into play. I might be off on that, but let's just keep flowing along with that.

The lands that would be removed from the control of Western Forest Products as part of this treaty…. Obviously, the forest values are of great importance to the Maa-nulth, to the nations involved, but also to Western. Does Western still have full access to those resources? Can they continue to harvest or initiate an accelerated harvest, or something, in anticipation of loss of the control?

Hon. M. de Jong: Insofar as the treaty settlement lands are concerned, my recollection, my belief, is that all of those lands are now covered by part 13 designations, which limit the activity that can take place in anticipation of the effective date of the treaty.

S. Fraser: As the minister is aware, of the three treaties that have come forward to the votes at the individual first nations, the Lheidli T'enneh did not meet the standard that was, certainly, set by the family heads. A high bar — 70 percent, I believe — was the threshold there. I have some concerns about what happened subsequent to that vote. A no vote seemed to generate activities, certainly through the Treaty Commission, regarding an investigation about the no vote and the rationale for that.

I know that there were comments made in the press suggesting that the no vote seemed to indicate a lack of understanding by the Lheidli T'enneh people, and I disagreed with that analysis. But what subsequently is happening with the Lheidli T'enneh? I am hearing rumours, so I'm just trying to get some…. I don't like to go by rumours.

Hon. M. de Jong: The member is correct. The vote that took place — sadly, in the case of the Lheidli T'enneh — not only failed to meet the threshold established internally by the families and by the community, it actually failed to meet the lower threshold that had been negotiated between the three parties themselves. So it failed to meet all of the thresholds.

The best way to describe the current state of affairs is that the ball is squarely in the court of the Lheidli T'enneh. If they wish to re-examine the treaty or re-engage at the community level and put that negotiated agreement to the community, that is a choice they can make.

I am less critical or suspicious than, I think, the member is about what took place in the immediate aftermath of the no vote. I think that the community, the leadership, Chief Domo, with whom I spoke, was very disappointed by the result. I think that they wished to learn about what may have contributed to the expression that arose out of the community. They, of course, respected, as we do, the community's response to the proposed settlement agreement. I think that's what gave rise to an invitation to the Treaty Commission and the chief commissioner to come to the community and engage in a dialogue.

I have heard the same commentary that the member has advanced here from some folks who thought this unusual or were troubled by the fact that in the aftermath of the negative vote, there might be that kind of activity.

As I say, I'm less troubled and less critical. I know that the leadership, Chief Domo and others, were disappointed. I think it was not surprising that they might want to learn more about what gave rise to the community voting the way it did and whether there was something that could be done to address those feelings and decide on what the future action would be.

There have been subsequent tripartite meetings between the Lheidli T'enneh, Canada and the province of British Columbia that have dealt with some capacity issues. Of course, we'll continue to deal with the Lheidli T'enneh, and we respect the decision that they have made. But the next step, as it relates to the final agreement, is squarely in their court.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister. I think that at least one of the concerns, as it was laid out to me….

Obviously, this introspection expected internally for a first nation to look at a no vote, to look at what went wrong or why there was a no vote — I understand that. But I think the concern was that it was external. So if a yes vote is a yes vote, and a no vote is, "Okay, let's see if we can change that; let's see if we can try it again…." I'm not suggesting coercion, but it had been suggested to me that there were outside forces trying to turn that around, and maybe not in the noblest way.

Can the minister confirm that the ministry has not subsequently put resources into changing the vote? Is there anything happening there? That was kind of the concern. The concern was that the vote didn't go the way that maybe the minister or others wanted, and therefore there were resources being put in there — I've heard everything from money being offered to others, to maybe elders — to try to sweeten the pot, to maybe try to get a yes vote. That would be, of course, unethical, so I'm hoping that I'll hear that that's not happening, that that didn't happen.

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, I was disappointed with the vote, and I'm not going to suggest otherwise. It was, at the time, the first ratification vote emanating out of the B.C. Treaty Commission process. We had high hopes, based on what we were hearing out of the community and from the chief, that it would be successful. As I think back, the chief and council who were proponents for the final agreement had been, within a month or two previous, re-elected to their positions, so there was every reason to be optimistic, but the community expressed its views in a very different way.

I can tell the member categorically, in the aftermath of that vote, two things. First of all…. I know the member didn't mean to convey this, but I want to make it abundantly clear on the record. The Treaty Commission and the chief commissioner at the time, who of course fulfils another very important role in our province today, were invited by the committee, as the keepers of the process — and I think, in the case of the chief commissioner, as an eminent person universally well respected — to come into the community and conduct a dialogue.

I wouldn't want anyone to garner or be left with the impression that the commission or the chief commissioner in any way tried to coerce or admonish the community for the decision they made. Far from it. It was an exercise aimed at trying to better understand what some of the concerns were about — mostly the process, I expect, as opposed to the substantive nature of the treaty.

Beyond that, far from offering any inducements, from the point of view of the government and the ministry, we made it clear to the Chief and through the Chief and council to the community that we were not prepared to renegotiate this final agreement.

The agreement was there. We believe it was fair. We believe it was reasonable. Whilst it was certainly available to the community to decide internally, following additional work and discussion, to revisit the issue by conducting an additional vote, they should not embark upon that exercise in the mistaken belief that the province — or Canada, for that matter, although we speak for the province…. We made that point clear — that we were not prepared to reopen the agreement and offer inducements or alterations or amendments to advance the cause of the treaty.

I know the community continues to consider its options, to consider the final agreement. I expect that they are also looking at what is taking place in other communities. I expect that they are interested to see what has taken place in Tsawwassen and in the five Maa-nulth communities. At the end of the day, they will have to make the decision about whether or not to conduct another ratification vote. If so, they will have to decide as a community whether or not they believe this treaty meets their long-term requirements and is deserving of their support.

A hypothetical situation. The province and the feds could, as two-thirds of the tripartite negotiations, arguably put forward positions that were not acceptable and that could be flawed or that might not be in keeping or consistent with, say, court decisions that subsequently occurred — Chilcotin being one, but certainly not necessarily exclusively.

Is the minister saying that a treaty is a treaty is a treaty and that once you get to a point, there is no point in changing it, even if it's inconsistent with the spirit and intent of court decisions or of other things — international declarations, even? These things will not be renegotiated. Is that the truth of the matter now?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think I understand the member's point. It is certainly the case that in the type of scenario — and I won't use hypotheticals; I will refer to the case that we have been discussing, which is this Lheidli T'enneh — it is certainly possible for the parties, all three of them, to agree to re-engage in substantive negotiations.

To this point we, the province, have said to the Lheidli T'enneh that we are not prepared to do so. It is certainly technically feasible and possible for the parties to agree otherwise.

In the aftermath of the vote by the community to reject the treaty, we were asked that question, much as the member has asked it here. Our response at that time and to this point is that no, we are not prepared to renegotiate the substantive terms of the agreement. If the community wishes to re-examine and reassess, they are free to do so. There is nothing that prevents the parties, except their will to do so, from engaging in renewed negotiations.

S. Fraser: I touched on an issue — the Chilcotin decision, Chief William. Where are we at there? There was certainly a four-month window that was laid out, I believe, as a time line to deal with the aftermath and the decision of the courts regarding title and rights for the Chilcotin. Can the minister give me the Cole's Notes version of where we are with that?

Hon. M. de Jong: Actually, it might be useful, on something of this import and magnitude…. I'm not going to suggest that the member or I may have time to do this in the next week or two, but it might be worth the member and I checking our schedules and having the member get a full briefing on the issue and where we're at and what's taking place.

It's interesting in this sense. A decision was issued. We're at a point now where there are discussions, negotiations taking place, and attempts being made to finalize and understand the order itself that emanated from the trial in front of Mr. Justice Vickers.

The most recent development occurred on the litigation front within the last 24 hours, when Mr. Justice Vickers ruled on an application by the plaintiffs to amend pleadings that gave rise to the case in the first place. The information I have, though I have not read the decision, is that earlier today Mr. Justice Vickers denied that application from the plaintiffs to amend their pleadings. Where that goes, I'm not really in a good position to speculate.

There are certainly discussions taking place between the plaintiffs, Tsilhqot'in, and the individual plaintiff and the province. To this point the federal government has largely restricted itself to observer status. The discussions are such that — and the parties have agreed to this — probably at this stage I won't be able to say very much to the member about it in this forum, except to assure him that those discussions are taking place and that the parties are fully engaged.

S. Fraser: I would accept the minister's invitation to maybe try to spend a bit of time later. I'll be mindful of the limited time now to deal with where we're at. I'm happy to hear, though, that the discussions are happening, and I'm hoping that will be fruitful, of course, for the Xeni Gwet'in.

The minister mentioned a couple of things. He mentioned the federal government — I'm a little concerned here — observer status. As a tripartite, constitutionally you can't separate out the feds here, and arguably, discussions out of the decision could lead to rights and title issues that directly affect the fed. How do you do that in a productive way if the federal government, as a critical piece of that, is only sitting in as an observer?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, the member is correct. First of all, I don't want to make comments that would reflect negatively on the officials that the federal government has sent, but the member is correct. We have made this point and continue to make this point with the federal government. I think, ultimately, they understand the point that we have made and that the member has re-emphasized here. They are involved.

We are talking about cross-jurisdictional issues. We're talking about aspects of a decision that relate to jurisdiction, the assignment of jurisdictions. These are points that will engage the involvement of the federal government. We've made that point. We will continue to make that point, and as we move forward, we will seek their fulsome involvement in the discussion, as will the plaintiffs.

S. Fraser: Again, my legal expertise is nil. I hate to do this again, but in theory there could be a decision made here that could in theory take away the legitimacy or the rights of the province in this matter. It could come down to a point where the interpretation of the decision could lead to a place where the province doesn't really have authority in this matter, which would make it a bipartite situation between the federal government and the Xeni Gwet'in.

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, yeah, the opinion from Mr. Justice Vickers speaks squarely to that point. It speaks to his views on the Crown in right of British Columbia versus the Crown in right of Canada. He has some very specific opinions on who is constitutionally bound to exercise those powers and with whom the relationship between the first nation and the plaintiff exists.

The member is correct, and that's why, ultimately, if there is to be a negotiated resolution to this, it will necessarily involve the federal government. There's no doubt about it, in my mind, that resolving this through a negotiation will require their full involvement. I suspect we will achieve that, but this is big stuff. I think the federal government appreciates that, and they'll have to be involved.

S. Fraser: I'd like to probe that further, but maybe I can come back to it. I think I would run out of time if I were going to go longer.

The decision, though…. I agree with the minister. The potential for this court decision and the fallout from it could be quite significant and, I would suggest, precedent-setting.

Now, I haven't seen — I could be wrong — a mechanism in place for addressing, modifying, amending the treaty process to be in keeping with court decisions. We've had a number of court decisions over the last year. We've had, certainly, Delgamuukw. We've had a whole raft of court decisions that have come out that potentially have, I would suggest, implications for future treaties. But I haven't seen a mechanism to actually amend the treaty process to incorporate the spirit and intent of these court decisions.

This court decision is a pretty landmark decision in a lot of ways, dealing with an interpretation of title and rights in traditional territories.

Two questions, I guess. How is the minister looking at trying to ensure that the treaty process is a dynamic one that incorporates such changes? Also, there are discussions around the Tsilhqot'in — the Vickers decision and, obviously, the negotiations that the minister has referred to with the Xeni Gwet'in and Chief William. How will those precedents, if they are precedents, flow out to other treaty tables, other negotiations or with first nations that are not involved in the treaty

Hon. M. de Jong: Good question. I'm going to answer it, though, by setting aside for the moment the Tsilhqot'in decision, and I'll tell the member why.

That decision, as important and complex as it is…. Part of the novelty of where we go from here is that all of the parties have aspects of that decision that they like and aspects that they don't like — all of the parties.

So one of the questions at this stage is: do the parties want to spend their time and energy battling about that decision? By that I mean bringing clarity to the orders that flow from it, appealing various aspects of it. Or do they wish to sit down, armed with the decision, such as it is, and utilize the parts of it that can be utilized to craft a negotiated settlement that resolves some of the outstanding issues?

When the member speaks to a mechanism by which the treaty process can be informed by what is taking place elsewhere, be it through the common law in the courts or in other negotiations, I'm going to emphasize that at this point the parties haven't yet agreed and have differing opinions on what parts of that decision would be utilized to instruct the Treaty Commission process.

However, I think the main point of the member's question was that things change. Therefore, how does the treaty process take account of those changes? The biggest expression we have seen of late to a treaty process that is dynamic, flexible and capable of accommodating those kinds of changes is something that I think the member is familiar with. That is the establishment of the common table, an exercise that the Treaty Commission itself has agreed to conduct, following meetings with all of the parties.

I think the first major exchange took place in December of 2007, when the parties sat down and everyone very candidly said: "You know, we have some issues here that are acting as impediments to agreements being reached at the rate that people would like to see them reached."

The member knows, I think, what some of them are as they relate to status of land, taxation issues and some of these other things. Is there a way to break through that? Parties say that various mandates are too inflexible and not conducive to the needs of the community.

That common table is fully operational. What we've set as an objective…. This is not to set up a parallel process. It's not to replace one mandate with the other, but can we identify some options? Can we establish a range of options around some of these issues, a range of options around language that is agreeable to the parties? Different communities will opt for different approaches, depending on what their needs or their interests are.

I'm happy that that's taking place. I don't think that's an exercise that we need to be afraid of. If successful, it could conceivably create a circumstance in which we see an acceleration of the settlement process. I'm not making any predictions at this point, because it's a difficult and complex issue and set of negotiations. But that's the best example and, I think, an important and significant example of how the treaty negotiation process is adapting itself or attempting to adapt itself to take into account some of the evolving issues and evolving circumstances.

S. Fraser: The minister has touched on it, so I'll jump right to common table. What resources are being put towards that process?

Hon. M. de Jong: At this point the three parties — meaning the first nations, via the summit, in this case; the province; and the federal government — have negotiating teams in place who are now fully engaged.

The vast majority of the operational funding or resource funding is being channelled via the Treaty Commission, who are sponsoring the initiatives. They, of course, are drawing on the resources that are provided to them by the two levels of government.

S. Fraser: Does the minister believe that the common-table process that is being embarked on will address some of the concerns that the Auditor General had? He had concerns. If I recall, they were around dealing with the treaty process, in particular with the focusing of resources on a few lead tables potentially at the expense of others and some lack of disclosure about some of the challenges within the treaty process — being silent on those things while celebrating any successes. Will the common table help address any of those concerns that the Auditor General indicated?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, insofar as the Auditor General commented candidly, as he always does, around the amount of time, energy, resources and money that has been devoted to this and the frustration that exists on many fronts around the progress that has been made, albeit acknowledging that we saw the first six communities step up and embrace the first final agreements, and we're hopeful of more this year…. To the extent that the common table is designed to address some of the issues that have been identified as an impediment to reaching additional agreements, I'm hopeful that the Auditor General would see that as a useful exercise and an important exercise.

I think that anytime we can bring parties together as we are here — first nations can come together and say, "We have some common interests, and instead of negotiating at separate tables, we as first nations choose to come together and try to achieve solutions with the two other levels of government as a larger body" — that's an efficiency. That's a positive development, in my view. I hope that the Auditor General would see it as such.

Oddly enough, we talk about lead tables, and what we've tried to do here is identify a lead table for some

lead issues, because there are some specific issues that the common table is going to try and address.

What's the breakdown of the budget, now, with the lead tables? Are they still getting the lion's share of the budget associated with treaty as compared to the tables that are less advanced?

Hon. M. de Jong: We don't break out or allocate the budget quite on that basis, but I don't want to be coy about this either. I want to acknowledge to the member that insofar as the devotion of attention and activity, the tables at the moment involving the Sliammon, the Yale and the In-SHUCK-ch are of particular interest.

That is not to say that there is not discussion, negotiations taking place at the other tables. They are. Do the negotiators for the three tables that I have just referred to speak and meet with greater frequency? Probably, because they're very close to being in a position to proclaim a final agreement, I hope.

So I don't want to suggest that there aren't some differences on that front. I should say the common table, as well, which we believe is very much a part of trying to move this forward. That, of course, has implications for a whole host of treaty tables, because those involve first nations who have said to us: "If we can collectively solve these issues, we think that our individual tables are going to leap ahead towards settlement."

S. Fraser: I understand the minister's response, and I appreciate the minister's response. I guess what I was getting at…. Over the last couple of years we've seen a lot of discontent with the treaty process from first nations. We've seen that the signatories to the unity protocol, for instance, are very, very frustrated with the treaty process. We're seeing not just, as the minister was talking about, lead tables meeting more frequently — that would be expected — but resources to the tables.

Hul'qumi'num, for instance. You've got the largest treaty table on the Island — in the province, probably, when you look at the population there — frustrated through that process, because if anyone is sitting, they're not seeing the resources that are being brought to the table, whether it's legal advice or just not having the same level of authority, really, coming to the table.

They see that as frustrating, and I understand their frustration. So is that being dealt with? Are those issues being addressed — some of the issues that were raised through the unity protocol?

Hon. M. de Jong: In fact, of course, as the member knows, it was the unity protocol that played a very leading role in helping to establish the common table. That would be the expression they gave to a range of concerns. I have to say that I think back on the discussion that began in December. It was very candid and far-reaching. The parties said: "Here are the issues that are preventing us from getting to where we want to go."

Negotiators. Senior negotiators — I want to make that point — are showing up at our tables, but they are coming with mandates and positions and language that for us are unacceptable. If they continue to show up with those mandates, positions and language, we're not going to make any progress, whether we're a lead table or not. We're not going to get to where we need to go.

So the common table, which arose out of that, is very much aimed at conveying…. The member mentioned the Hul'qumi'num. They're a big part of that. They have said: "Look, here are three or four key issues that we need to find a solution to. We're not prepared to negotiate a final agreement in these areas on the basis of what we have seen the federal and provincial government do with other first nations, so let's try to find some alternative. Let's try to find something that will work."

I've tried to be as candid as I can with them. We want to ensure that we preserve an element of equity, but equity doesn't always have to mean duplication. There are different ways to establish and maintain that equity.

So I think at the moment — and we're in the early stages — with the reports that I've gotten following the establishment of the actual working sessions, that the work is now ongoing, and we're going to want to check in and see where we're at inside of a couple of months.

This is not designed to lead to another five years of discussion. We've got some specific issues that we want to try to find solutions to, and I'm hopeful that we can and that that will translate into progress at a whole series of other tables, including the one that the hon. member referred to.

S. Fraser: Just going back a step, the treaty process for those nations that are involved in it is superior in many ways to litigation. That's, obviously, to be avoided. We see even with the Vickers decision, the interpretations of that are many and varied and do not necessarily bring an end-game to a decision. Often the court decisions are more confusing than before the litigation even began.

I believe the minister, through the new relationship, has stated that we want to avoid litigation at all costs, that talking and negotiating is superior.

We are still seeing litigation. I mean, we're seeing issues…. I have concerns where in my constituency the Hupacasath are going back to court. The Hupacasath won a court decision in 2005. Chief Sayers and the Hupacasath…. I know they won. They didn't get anything back for it. The land was removed, and the court agreed, the judge agreed and the decision agreed that there was not adequate accommodation or consultation with the Hupacasath First Nation.

There was some payment back then by Weyerhaeuser and the provincial government to minimally compensate the Hupacasath for the court costs that they incurred, but I still think they're out of pocket a

couple of hundred thousand dollars. Considering they won the case…. It's a good thing they didn't lose it. It would have been much more costly.

But they're now having to go back to court again. We've seen almost the identical situation occur last year with removal of more forest lands on Vancouver Island — 28,000 more hectares on Vancouver Island — and first nations, one by one, each nation coming up and saying exactly the same thing that the Hupacasath said when they went to court back in 2004: that they were not adequately consulted or accommodated about those land removals.

Now we've got first nations dealing with a new case of land removal that is identical to the old case that the Hupacasath won. The Hupacasath are going back to court again, and so are other first nations, over an issue that should have been settled because the court decision was quite clear. It was unequivocal. The court decision said that the Crown was dishonoured in the failure to accommodate and consult with the Hupacasath. And it happened again.

How does the minister reconcile that with agreeing that it's a good idea to not have to go to court and to negotiate in good faith instead?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, I believe that it is preferable to endeavour to negotiate a settlement that is mutually acceptable to the parties involved and that that is preferable to litigating in court.

My preference, however, I'm sad to say, does not always translate into things happening the way I wish. The mere fact that parties are committed to a negotiation process does not always translate into a final settlement being achieved.

J. Horgan: The critic for the official opposition has just touched upon tree farm licence private land removals recently. Certainly, in my constituency of Malahat–Juan de Fuca, the Beecher Bay band, the T'sou-ke Nation and the Pacheedaht Nation have expressed repeatedly — in public forums and, I believe, directly to government, if not to this minister — their disappointment at the absence of consultation and accommodation with respect to that deletion.

Recently the capital regional district went through a public hearing process to downzone those lands that were removed by this government — in an attempt to protect the region from unbridled development. At that time, Western Forest Products slipped in applications before the Minister of Community Services could approve the bylaws and now has put, in essence, these development applications before the Crown once again by way of the approving officer within the Ministry of Transportation.

I have in front of me correspondence from legal counsel for the Beecher Bay band and the T'sou-ke Nation asking the Ministry of Transportation, the body responsible for the preliminary layout approvals, when they can expect consultation. I'm wondering if the minister could advise me if his ministry has taken up these issues along the west coast of Vancouver Island. Has he dedicated any staff to ensure that consultation does take place in this instance?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member will appreciate my reluctance to delve into detail into matters that are the subject of litigation, although I think, ultimately, his question did not relate to that. It related to an inquiry from the representative for the particular band, the Beecher Bay band.

What I hope I can convey to the hon. member is that the government, in its entirety, takes very seriously the obligations that accrue to the Crown to consult and, where appropriate, accommodate the interests of first nations. I won't pretend that the awareness of that has not evolved greatly over the last decade or so.

I think the government and departments of government have an appreciation of that today that they may not have had a number of years ago. We're continuing to work with ministries and with departments of government to ensure that we, as government, are discharging our duties appropriately.

In the case that the member has raised here today, I have no hesitation in indicating to the member that I'll double-check. I know the Ministry of Transportation, of course, is involved on an ongoing basis in matters right across the province and has well-defined protocols around the notification and consultation with first nations.

I won't hesitate, though, to alert the ministry to the fact that this matter was raised here and confirm the nature of the work that is taking place. It is important work, and it is necessary. It is mandated both by the courts, by the constitution and by the relationship that we are endeavouring to achieve with the first nations and aboriginal people across the province.

J. Horgan: Well, I appreciate that the Ministry of Transportation takes very seriously its obligations with respect to first nations — with respect to road construction, road maintenance and so on.

But the issue that I'm trying to drill down on here is an anachronism inasmuch as the Ministry of Transportation is responsible for development permits in unincorporated areas in British Columbia. In this instance, the Ministry of Transportation has been given responsibility to approve a preliminary layout of a subdivision.

So this isn't, "We're going to add another lane here or another lane there, or we're going to pass a right-of-way, OIC," and that sort of thing. This is something that would be traditionally done by a municipal entity, and it is not being done in this instance.

My question directly to the minister is…. I'm absolutely certain the issue management capacity within his organization, or certainly within the public affairs bureau, would have alerted he or senior representatives in his ministry that there was a failure to consult with respect to the removal of lands in the Beecher Bay instance, inadequate consultation in the case of T'sou-ke Nation, and a confused consultation at best with the Pacheedaht.

Now we have the Minister of Forests saying, at the time of the deletions, that these issues, the issues of development permits and that sort of thing, are the responsibilities of municipal governments. In most instances that would be true, but in this case the obligation and responsibility, I believe, to consult and to pass or approve these various subdivision applications, comes back to the Ministry of Transportation.

The Minister of Forests said: "It's not my problem; talk to your local government." Local government said: "Well, we'll deal with this. We'll downzone the land to try and protect the integrity of the rural portions of my constituency." In doing so, Western Forest Products made application to the capital regional district, which has to transfer that application to another member of the Crown, the Minister of Transportation.

I wanted the minister to be perfectly clear. This is not your garden-variety activity. I'm not certain he's aware of how unincorporated areas would address this issue. To have legal counsel for two first nations write directly to the Ministry of Transportation saying, "You have not yet consulted; when are you coming?" I think is significant because in most cases — and the minister and his staff will be aware of this — most bands and nations throughout British Columbia are inundated with letters from development possibilities, whether it be mining, forestry…. Government interacts as well. Capacity is a huge challenge; we all acknowledge that.

In this case the bands have been burned in my community. They are being proactive about consultation, reaching out to government, asking when that consultation will take place.

My question to the minister is: will he — absent an opportunity to directly ask this of the Minister of Transportation, estimates have gone by; absent the opportunity to ask the Minister of Community Services, estimates have gone by — as the minister responsible for the new relationship, take steps today and assure me and the constituents in my area that he will take personal responsibility for these applications and ensure that these bands are consulted?

Hon. M. de Jong: We should actually be dealing first with the last point the hon. Member raised.

We should, and I hope we do over the course of the afternoon, talk a little bit about the challenges that bands face in terms of the capacity in dealing with referrals and some of the work that is taking place — I think, in part, in the member's riding — that is pretty innovative in helping to alleviate some of that difficulty. We'll come to that, I hope, at some point.

I accept the submission of the member that we are dealing here with a proposed transaction which, from the point of view of the involvement of the Ministry of Transportation, is somewhat different than a conventional road construction. It is not, however, perhaps as unique as the member may believe, insofar as there are situations like this that crop up right around the province — in fact, I think, one in my community as well.

Having said all that, the obligation to the Crown remains the same. I think the member was trying to convey this in the strongest possible terms. The obligation to consult does not accrue to an individual ministry or department of government. It accrues to the Crown — in this case the Crown and the right of the province of British Columbia. The obligation we have is to discharge that.

I wish I could say that in every instance where the Crown seeks to discharge that responsibility, the ending is a happy one that precludes the involvement of the courts or litigation, but as the member's colleague and I have just canvassed, that is not always the case.

I can assure the member that as a result of the exchange we've had here this afternoon, I will make specific inquiry about the status of the matter that he has raised here to ensure that all of the appropriate actions are being taken on behalf of the Crown via the department that he has referenced, and that the Crown's obligations, vis-à-vis the bands involved, the first nations involved, are being properly discharged.

S. Fraser: The minister just, again, referred to the new relationship. Will that be formalized in legislation? This new relationship hasn't been signed. It has raised levels of expectations, certainly, in the province with first nations and non-first nations alike. Three and a half years later it has not been, to my knowledge, even signed. I don't see it as a formal document — a guide at best, that may or may not be used and is causing some confusion and frustration.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think it's worth taking a moment to remind ourselves of…. I'll answer the member's question. The new relationship arose out of, primarily, a desire and a recognition on the part of first nations leadership, the government of British Columbia, and the Premier that said: "Look, we want to do things differently. We want to work together. We want to, via the leadership council and the government, attach a level of importance to this relationship." As the member says, there's no document. It's a remarkably short document. It wasn't one of these long 20-page treatises. That doesn't mean, in my view, that it was any less profound.

It began with, I think, a very profound phrase: "We're all here to stay. Now, what flows from that, and what can we make happen?" Much of the work that has taken place — the reconciliation agreements, the economic development agreements, the work in health care and education — has flowed from that desire, combined with The Transformative Change Accord, to have an impact, to make a difference, to bridge the socioeconomic divide.

Now, having said all of that, and referred briefly to much of the progress that has been made, it is also true, as the member points out, that increasingly first nations leaders, particularly some, have said: "Fine, we want the government of British Columbia to give expression to that in the most formal way that governments can, through the creation of a statute, through the creation of a law, by passing through the House that we are sitting in, this law-making assembly, a formal instrument that binds us to something."

We said: "Okay, we're prepared to do that. We're prepared to work with you on achieving that end." That work is now ongoing, and it is, again, complex work. It speaks to the recognition of things. In fact, the member, I suspect, knows this — many don't — that in the discussions that have taken place between us and the leadership councils and others, we most often refer to this as the recognition act and the forum that that will take…. What does shared decision-making mean? How does it apply? Can we decide a process for where it should apply? The member may know about the steps we are making, taking significant steps around the notion of revenue-sharing — again, a fundamental part of a new relationship.

These are aspects of the discussion that are taking place around the creation of that statutory instrument, that recognition act. Again, it has never been done before in the country. This is new ground. I think it's exciting new ground. I think it's something that the province is ready for and wants. It doesn't make the task any less complicated, and through the summer I know that there are going to be intense negotiations and discussions around what this ultimately looks like. But I can assure the member that the work is taking place. We have embraced that work as a government and are committed to seeing it through.

S. Fraser: I understand the brevity of The New Relationship document. I did sign on to the agreement. I approved of it — a strange thing to do as critic, initially — but the fact that it hasn't been anything more than a document that hasn't been formalized has caused problems. We are still seeing total inconsistencies here and there, certainly, with the forest issues, the land removal issues, mining issues and resource access issues within traditional territories.

With consultation issues, we have seen a bill come forward that we have been waiting for on children and families dealing with aboriginal children in care that was done in a vacuum, without consultation with first nations leadership and, I would suggest, in defiance of the spirit and intent of the Tsawwassen accord.

The fact that the document hasn't been formalized in any way, the new relationship document, has led to a lot of problems and confusion. I've probed this with other ministers over the last few years in estimates, amongst other ways, and there's been confusion about what their role is, what the new relationship is.

There's no formal application of the new relationship. It seems to be pulled out at times and then ignored at other times. So any recognition act that's being worked on…. I have certainly been apprised of that leadership council out of sheer frustration of not having any formalization of the new relationship. The confusion that I've just referred to has led to the drafting of potential legislation to fill that vacuum that never came out of the government.

While I'm happy to hear the minister say that there's work being done on the recognition act…. I've got a copy of the proposed act, the legislative proposal and indigenous nations recognition act. As far as I can see, the act was drafted strictly by first nations, by the leadership council, without work from the minister and ministry. Can he confirm that?

Hon. M. de Jong: I take issue with much of what the member has said in describing the progress that has been made around the new relationship. I'd like to pursue that in a moment. I do want to say this, however. The member has a document. I think I know the one he's referring to.

The fact that parties develop proposals or ideas is great. But that's what they are. There is actually one body that creates law in the sense that we have statute law — provincial — and that's the body that the member is a member of. So the fact that someone has an idea about what a particular statute might look like, develops that and presents it, I think is great. That's the discussion we're having. That's the negotiation that we're having going forward. I'm happy to and hope that the member and I can explore this further.

I'm also hoping, hon. Chair, that the member will indulge me for three minutes for a brief recess.

M. Sather: I just want to ask the minister a question on behalf of the Katzie First Nation of Pitt Meadows, Barnston Island and Langley with regard to the Upper Pitt IPP situation that happened in their traditional territory. The park boundary adjustment was pulled by the Minister of Environment.

They've written a letter. I just want to read parts of it and then basically ask the minister a question. Debbie Miller, chief negotiator of the Katzie First Nation, on the Minister of Environment's announcement regarding Run of River Power Inc.:

I just wanted to ask the minister if he has spoken to the Katzie First Nation about this issue and, whether he has or not, what view he has of the process that took place with regard to the consultation piece that the Katzie feel was not adequate.

Hon. M. de Jong: The short answer to the last question is no. I have not spoken with the members of the Katzie. I think the member's question, though, also relates to the interaction that takes place in circumstances like this one.

My recollection, though, is that the Katzie — and maybe the member can indicate, given that he is the MLA for the area — were one of the leading proponents of the power project and may have been involved economically in some way in the project, for which approval for the transmission lines was not granted and therefore didn't advance. I think the member is indicating that they were.

M. Sather: Just to clarify, the Katzie didn't take a position on it officially. My impression is that they were in favour of it. I don't know anything about any financial arrangements.

I don't have a definitive answer for the member about whether or not the legal obligation to consult would be triggered by a decision not to do something, if the member appreciates what I'm saying. We generally think of these things in the guise of government or a third party having the authority or making the decision to do something that may impact upon the rights or traditional territory of a first nation.

Does that obligation trigger in a situation in which the decision is made not to do something? I can't offer a definitive opinion.

The other interesting and potentially relevant part of the member's question is: to what extent does the existence of a bilateral agreement that may transcend common-law obligations impact? I don't have a definitive response for the member on that as well, but I am curious enough to want to examine the agreement that the member references in the letter he has read from.

S. Fraser: I'll get back to where we left off with the indigenous nations recognition act. The minister knows that I had a motion on the order paper to empower the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. It was over a number of issues, but my perceived frustration amongst first nations and first nations leaders around, amongst other things, the treaty process — we've talked a bit about that, the unity protocol — and also the new relationship and the lack of formalizing of that….

It was in the interests of trying to have an open, on-record process to deal with that issue that I put forward the motion. Of course, a standing committee is already recognized. It just has to be empowered by the Premier.

Bringing that forward to deal with aboriginal affairs in a bipartisan or in some ways a potentially non-partisan way, in the interest of all British Columbians, first nations and non, in my opinion would have been a useful tool that already exists through the Legislature.

Subsequent to that we've had, as the minister pointed out, the legislation brought forward. The minister said that anybody can bring forward anything, and it takes this government to actually enact it into law.

The Chair: Committee A will stand recessed until after the vote in the House.

S. Fraser: Where was I when the bells rang? I was referring to the indigenous nations recognition act and the fact that the minister had said that…. As the bells were ringing, I was suggesting that…. The minister had just said that anybody can bring forward any act or any suggested act, but that it takes government to bring it into law.

I understand that. But under the circumstances, we've had a new relationship which has been held up by the Premier many, many times and has not been formalized, has not been brought into any form of legislation and has caused problems as opposed to solving problems because it hasn't been formalized. That's a position that I've heard time and again from first nations and first nations leaders in the province.

We have a proposed act brought forward by the leadership council. I know it's up to the government to bring forward legislation, but the government has not brought forward legislation. So this is in the vacuum of that. This has been brought forward because the government did not bring forward legislation.

Of course, the new relationship refers to a government-to-government relationship. So the minister's statement about it that, "they can bring forward this, but it takes a government to enact it," is fair enough, but that's a delicate position to be in. I would not write off the importance of First Nations Leadership Council bringing forward legislation in lieu of legislation that should have come forward from government.

With that in mind, I'd like to know what resources are going towards addressing and empowering an act — in this case the indigenous nations recognition act. What level of negotiations is occurring right now?

Hon. M. de Jong: I might take a couple of minutes on this. First of all, I want to make certain that people observing these debates and these exchanges understand

that for centuries, aboriginal peoples and first nations have created laws. One of the objectives and challenges we continue to work towards with first nations is ensuring that that notion of self-governance is properly reflected and properly accommodated within the broader constitutional framework. I wanted to make that clear, lest there be any misunderstanding about that.

There has emerged in many quarters an interest, even a strong interest, in taking some of the concepts that have emerged via the new relationship and embedding them in a statute that is passed by this assembly. The government has said that is an objective and a goal that we share. It is an objective and project that touches on a variety of different aspects.

We've talked already in these debates about the obligation to consult and to accommodate. Lest the member think this is purely a matter of taking a piece of document and saying: "Here is the new relationship, and now it is an act…." It is far more complicated and far more comprehensive than that. I'll give the member one example. He has in the past — I think through these estimates debates and in the House, in other contexts — referred to this with some measure of accuracy.

The books that are behind Madam Chair contain the revised statutes of British Columbia. From the perspective of the evolving common law — in some cases around the constitution, around the obligation to consult and accommodate — many of them are woefully out of date. They were passed by governments in the past, without any regard for some of these fundamental principles that guide us in our deliberations in our relationship with the first nations and aboriginal peoples today.

We can choose to update those statutes individually — it would probably take us 20 years to do it — or we can try to arrive at a place where, via some umbrella statutory instrument, we begin to address that. I prefer the latter course. It's one of the reasons I am very drawn, and the government is very drawn, to the project we have initiated.

That is something that needs to be worked on collectively and thought through carefully and, if it's going to work, needs to meet with the approval of all the parties concerned. That is part and parcel of the work that is taking place.

It is inaccurate to say that the government has refused to table the statute. We're working on a bill, but we're working with partners who have expressed their interest and have said that for them, the leadership council, this is a priority.

If we do it right — if we actually tackle issues like shared decision-making, some of the other revenue-sharing and consultation protocols — then we will be spared, I hope, the need of going through each one of those binders and amending legislation, some of it dating back decades. That's how important this is and why I think it justifies the measure of attention that we have given it.

Having said all that, to suggest, as I have heard some say, that the new relationship remains a concept, a pledge, an idea and a promise unfulfilled — and that until it is embodied in a statute called the recognition act, it is of no consequence — is also, in my view, fundamentally wrong. It was that collective desire to do things differently, to move ahead on a different basis, that gave rise to a whole host of initiatives.

I'm going to give the member a document that lists some of those initiatives, but I'll talk about a few of them. A hundred-million-dollar trust. It was developed in concert with first nations, with the leadership council. It's called the new relationship trust. It didn't require an act; it didn't require a different kind of document. It required the will to do it. It's not the answer to all of our issues, but it's a step we took, and it's a hundred million dollars that first nations now manage and make decisions around.

We work with the Métis nation of British Columbia through a protocol that was established in an accord that flows from a new relationship — flows from the spirit contained within that coming together. We have moved ahead with benefit-sharing agreements. These are — in the case of treaty 8, which we've just signed, worth potentially hundreds of millions of dollars — a product of two things, of working together with first nations and accepting the principles that underline the new relationship.

When we do these things, sometimes they require legislation, and sometimes they don't. I think I said a moment ago that the new relationship trust didn't require an act. I think, actually, we did pass an act to give effect to the new relationship trust, but its genesis was not that legislation. It was the new relationship that said: "Let's do these things differently."

You can go through, as I hope people will, and look at the things that are happening — that are different and wouldn't have happened ten or 15 or 20 years ago — that are designed to improve the lives of first nations and aboriginal peoples on the ground. That's where we're going to have an impact. That is not to diminish in any way the import of the exercise that we call the recognition act that is ongoing now.

I think, from his comments, the member is conveying to the committee and to the House that he believes that it is a worthwhile and important project. He hasn't said that, but I think that is the essence of his commentary. He believes it is something that is deserving of the highest possible priority, and it has that.

It has that within government, and these discussions will continue to take place. Hopefully, we will end up in a place where both parties can emerge and step forward and say, "Here is something that we jointly believe in," in the same way that we have said in the past: "Here is an education initiative — legislation designed to vest and reconvey authority around education to first nations."

That was an idea that emerged partially within British Columbia and partially in response to something that took place federally. The party said: "Let's jointly develop a piece of legislation that will meet our needs and will address that."

None of us have the luxury, I would suggest, to unilaterally sit down and say: "Here's what we have, and this is the way it's going to be." If this is going to work, it's going to require us to act collectively, to talk with one another and to ensure that the product that we end up with meets our collective needs and enjoys the support of our constituencies.

That is going to be, I dare say, a significant part of the work that we have to do once the negotiations, the discussions and the initial drafting work are done, because both parties are going to need to know that they enjoy the support of their respective constituencies to move forward with something that has not been done elsewhere in Canada — has never been tried before.

I hope the member accepts my comments for what I intend them to be, which is to acknowledge the measure of importance that this holds not just for many first nations leaders but for the government as well and, also, to convey that much is happening. Much has happened that would not have happened had there not been this joint commitment to a new relationship.

I haven't talked about the land use planning. I haven't talked about a whole variety of things that have been made possible by the new approach we take with one another. Are there still issues? Are there still challenges? Absolutely. Part of the member's job is to point out where those challenges and problems lie, and that's good. That's an important function of how things work here.

There are some initial thoughts, at least, on both the new relationship and the recognition act project that we are presently embarked upon with first nations leadership.

The minister just talked about commitment to the new relationship. The indigenous nations recognition act is an attempt to get a commitment to the new relationship, because the new relationship was never formalized. So the commitment was the problem — the lack of commitment. It's on paper saying the right things, and it's agreed to, again, collaboratively. I'm not sure that's accurate. The minister said "collaboratively." Well, it was out of the Premier's office.

You've got ministers of the Crown, your peers, who do not seem to understand the new relationship. We've had a minister just try to bring in a much-needed children protection act dealing with aboriginal children in care — without respect to first nations leadership, without respect to the Tsawwassen accord, without meaningful consultation. The fact that this was done in isolation — the new relationship — has led to problems, and it has led to confusion. I'll say that amongst your own ministers that are your peers.

I am familiar with the $100 million trust. It came out at the same time that $150 million went to regional municipal trusts. So a fraction of the amount that went to municipalities went to first nations — 200-plus first nations in the province of British Columbia. Many of these communities have third-world conditions, and that gap has not closed appreciably in many cases. In my constituency in Ahousat, there are people, and children, suffering health risks because of a toxic mould within houses — unacceptable conditions by anyone's standards.

The new relationship suggests that these things would be addressed. I know they don't happen overnight, but to be accurate, the new relationship…. There are many pieces of this that simply haven't been successful, and the fact is that it hasn't been formalized. We now have an indigenous nations recognition act that's coming forward.

I don't think I got an answer, because I want to know…. I'll start with a bit of a new question. The minister said he's been working on this legislation. How long have you been working on recognition legislation?

The Chair: Before I recognize the minister, I just wanted to say that I realize how important this topic is and how critical it is, but I want to remind members that legislation or the need for legislation is not the purview of the Committee of Supply. If I may suggest, you might want to frame the debate slightly differently.

Hon. M. de Jong: The work that has been ongoing in a very formal way dates back to the fall of 2007. The discussions, actually, around the concept were somewhat earlier than that. The member has made some statements that, if genuinely held by him, I can't let pass unchallenged, partly because I think the member knows better.

The Minister of Children and Families, as a former Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation and someone with whom the member has more than a passing acquaintance, has distinguished himself in his previous role as the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and in his present capacity as someone who is deeply committed to working positively with first nations.

To suggest that he has embarked upon a strategy or activities that have not involved significant discussion with first nations is simply not true. It would be accurate to say that he was, in the course of those discussions, confronted by a variety of opinions held by first nations. But to suggest that there was not extensive interaction, discussion and consultation is simply inaccurate.

No one is more committed to trying to effect genuine reconciliation — in his present duties, through the incredibly important areas of child welfare — than the Minister of Children and Families. I think the member knows that. I think the member points out correctly that the government and the minister were confronted by a situation and adopted a certain course of action. The member is entitled to be critical of that if he so chooses.

But to somehow suggest that that was the product of a minister who didn't care enough to speak extensively and consult extensively with first nations leaders and representatives is simply unfair, and I have not known the hon. member to be someone who is prone to be unfair in that way. I do feel obliged to put those statements and those remarks on the record.

S. Fraser: Madam Chair, I'd just let you know that it's not actually legislation that I'm discussing. It's a

proposed act that was forwarded to the minister last fall. It wasn't proposed by us. It's ongoing work that has budgetary considerations here today. It's not an actual bill at all, at least at this point. It's a discussion that I'm trying to get some information on. Hopefully, that's all right.

Just in response, Minister, I'll give credit. There were aboriginal agencies, certainly, involved with the drafting of the legislation that we're referring to with Children and Families. I understand that.

Where the lacking was, was certainly with the leadership council, with on-reserve first nations, and the minister has the letters to prove it. I have the letters to prove it in my stack of stuff here. Members of the leadership council and on-reserve leaders of first nations were apprised of this legislation a couple of weeks before it was actually attempted to be brought forward here.

The legislation — the fact is that it failed. That's a disservice to the children in care that need that legislation. I didn't mean it to disparage the minister as though he did not care, and I'm not referring…. I mean the Minister of Children and Families. I believe he does care.

What I'm saying is that without a formalized process to address government-to-government negotiations on legislation that directly affects first nations and aboriginal people…. That shows a level of confusion, at the very least, about the new relationship. So there's a great need for it to be formalized.

The minister said that he was working on the recognition act and that that was ongoing, but the minister said that he began that work last fall. Well, that's when the leadership council provided the draft bill or act to try to address the shortfalls of not having the new relationship formalized.

That means that the minister had not been working on any type of act. I think I'm interpreting what the minister said correctly. There has been no attempt for three and a half years to formalize the new relationship or to bring forward an act that would do such a thing. Is that correct? Is that accurate?

Hon. M. de Jong: No, it's not correct. It would be correct if one accepted what seems to be the member's proposition that the only way to give effect to the new relationship is through a single legislative instrument. I don't agree with that. In fact, if we were to come to an agreement with first nations and pass the recognition act, is the member suggesting that's that? We now magically have a new relationship, and we can move on?

The new relationship refers to the complexity of the relationship that exists on a day-to-day basis and requires attention and nurturing in a whole host of different ways. So to suggest, as the member has, that nothing happened for three and a half years is just wrong. The new relationship trust happened. Negotiations leading to reconciliation agreements and benefit-sharing agreements with a whole host of first nations happened.

A settlement with the Esquimalt and Songhees First Nations around the very land that we are situated on today in this chamber…. It had gone unresolved for, I think, over a century — over a century, an unresolved claim. The new relationship provided the impetus to move forward and settle that claim.

Those are all products of a new relationship, and the member says: "Here is another instrument by which we can give effect." If he's saying that, I agree with him. If he's saying that nothing has happened, that the new relationship has been nothing but a mirage for three and a half years, then I disagree fundamentally with him.

We will do this work. We think it's important. I've tried to convey in a very specific way one of the reasons I believe it is so important, by acknowledging that the books of law by which this province is administered — insofar as our relationship and legal requirements vis-à-vis first nations, aboriginal peoples — are out of date. We need to bring them up to date.

This legal instrument, which has come to be known as the recognition act, is one way we can do that, in my view, far more effectively and efficiently than trying to address each one of those statutes individually. But it is another instrument.

In my view, it really does a disservice to all of the great things — all of the economic development and reconciliation agreements that have taken place over the course of the last three and a half years — to suggest that nothing has transpired. Quite the opposite is the case.

S. Fraser: I appreciate what the minister is saying, but it's reminiscent of the criticism that the Auditor General levelled at the handling of the treaty process. This government has been less than accurate in their depiction of the situation in dealing with and negotiating with first nations. The good news stories — and there are some; yes, there are some successes — are highlighted and showcased, and the significant challenges are not.

That's a paraphrasing of the Auditor General, and I apologize for that. I don't actually have that report with me, I don't think. But the minister is aware of that criticism that came forward. So yeah, there are some things.

The specifics of The New Relationship…. There are some specific things — "to appoint a joint working group to review forest and range agreements and make recommendations to the parties on options for amending those agreements in order to make them consistent with the visions and principles above."

Can the minister tell us how many resources have been put towards the creation of that joint working group and their successes, please?

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for referring to that part of the…. That actually was done, and it is ongoing. The member may recall when the forest and range agreements were initially developed. By the way, I'll take a moment, because I'm actually kind of proud of this. I was the Forests Minister at the time.

That type of resource revenue-sharing agreement had never been done in the country before. It was the first time it happened. We signed a whole host of agreements involving in excess of $100 million and millions of cubic metres of timber.

First nations, through the forestry council that was established over time, came and said, "You know, we've got some problems with some aspects of these agreements," and they actually changed. The language changed. The format changed. They became FROs, as the member correctly points out.

Forestry, as we all know, is still a tough business to be in. But insofar as the commitment that the member has referred to, emerging from The New Relationship document, that specific work, that specific commitment, was acted upon not just by government but by the parties themselves. That served as the impetus to move ahead with that. Probably there is still more work to be done.

I think that the member's other question related to the expenditure of resources. The Forests Ministry would have been, was and is the lead, as the member might expect. I don't have a number at my fingertips for what was devoted there. I do know this, though. Even from 2005 when I last sat in that office, a tremendous amount of the ministry's time — and when I was there, the minister's time — is now spent addressing these issues around first nations.

I won't go on long, because I know that the member has other things he wants to canvass. When I hear concerns being expressed around the concentration of tenure on the coast and on the Island…. It's not really the member's job to do this, sitting as he does in opposition. But I get a bit frustrated, because we have more tenure holders now via first nations than ever before. It's not an easy business to be in. But the diversification of tenure-holding via the first nations is very significant.

The member has pointed to one component of what was committed to. In that case, I think it's fair to say that not just a reasonable effort was made, but that the work was done in the way the parties contemplated. I think that is largely true of the initiatives laid out there.

S. Fraser: I disagree with the minister. The Auditor General disagrees with the minister. He suggests that the forest and range agreements, the FRAs, the FROs, have been a problem. They've caused confusion. They are short-term only, about five years, and they are confusing the treaty process for those first nations that are involved in the treaty process. As a parallel agreement, they diffuse the treaty process for those nations that are involved.

The report of March 4, 2008, the first nations forestry report. Again, I don't have time to read it, but the quote is here. "It is true that a few first nations have achieved modest success in forestry. But this is not the case for the vast majority…. The job creation record of first nations…is about 3 percent of industry standards. Cash received from government was inadequate to the real cost of developing these tenures. These agreements in themselves have judicial and political origins."

We have a situation here where the minister is holding up something as a success. I have visited extensively in the Interior and met with first nations who have signed these agreements. One of the descriptions I was told was that it was a gun to the head. The negotiation was: "You can sign it or not. If you don't, you can watch truck after truck of timber leave your traditional territories, the territories that you might indeed be negotiating for." It was a take-it-or-leave-it kind of negotiation.

We can agree to disagree that that is…. I've had a similar discussion with the Minister of Forests on that. He has held that up as a shining beacon of the new relationship, and it is not. It is fraught with problems. For all whatever good intent was there, there's a problem here.

I am not aware of any standing committee or resources that are ongoing and that are dealing with these issues that were either reported by the Auditor General or, in this case, by the first nations forestry group that did the report.

I don't have time to go through all the issues on the new relationship right now — or not in this set of estimates, certainly. The minister has suggested that there has been the beginning of working on the formalization of an act, if that was the right term — an umbrella legislation that can cover some of these issues to avoid having to rewrite all of the books from the past.

I appreciate the challenge around that. But this has begun, as the minister said, only in the fall of 2007. That's a few months ago. That's when the minister received the proposed draft legislation or whatever the heck you want to call it, because it's still a draft form.

My understanding is that there has been someone appointed. Mr. Plant has been appointed to try to address that. I'm interested in hearing the progress of that group. How often do they meet, and what resources are provided to address this important piece of potential legislation?

Hon. M. de Jong: First of all, I should say that the member is correct when he points to the involvement of Mr. Plant as someone who is engaged…. His inclusion as part of the government team was welcomed by first nations, and they see that as a positive development.

It would be wrong, however, to assume that this is a solo effort. The Deputy Attorney General and the Deputy Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation are also engaged. As the member might expect, given the nature of the work that is being undertaken, there are various legal advisers that we draw in from the Ministry of Attorney General as well.

This began, interestingly enough, as a working group. The member may not know that the government funds the leadership council to the tune of $2 million, to assist with the cost of a number of the working groups that have been set up. This working group dates back to 2007 and, of course, has now evolved into a very specific initiative that engages the members of the leadership council. They've organized themselves

in a way to participate and, obviously, draw on the legal resources that are available to them.

What has tended to occur of late is a series of exchanges, and then the parties come together for a couple of days of intensive negotiations and work at a table. We had one of those last month, and another one is scheduled for this month. So there is a strong level of commitment on the part of all the parties to try and make this a successful project.

The leadership council has impressed upon the government the level of importance they attach to this, the priority they give to this, and I am happy to acknowledge and to confirm for the member that it attracts a similar measure of importance from the point of view of the government of British Columbia.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. There has been no work done on formalizing the new relationship through an act or a piece of legislation until a few months ago, when the leadership council delivered a proposed act — and of the highest priority, understood. Since then, if I'm getting this correct from the minister, there was one meeting, and there's maybe another one scheduled.

When is the minister anticipating bringing forward such legislation, a completion of this project, at this rate?

Hon. M. de Jong: A couple of things. It is not correct, as the member has said, to say that no work has taken place to formalize the new relationship. I've tried at length to point out why I disagree with that statement. Through last year there were discussions. I think back to a meeting that took place in August, where we had discussions with certain members of the leadership council, who expressed their interest and their desire to see this happen. Eventually, the leadership council as a body embraced that notion.

It was not the delivery of the document that the member refers to that initiated this work. The work had been committed to. The concept had been embraced in advance of that. I think it's entirely appropriate for members of the leadership council, having secured a commitment from the government to move forward with this, to begin to produce a product for consideration.

But it is incorrect to suggest that the delivery of that document somehow represented the commencement of the discussion or the work or the commencement of formalizing the new relationship. That is wrong — fundamentally wrong — and I don't share…. If that's the member's genuinely held view, then I disagree with it absolutely.

We have committed jointly to work on this through the next number of months. We also recognize that at the completion of that work, if we can arrive at a point where the parties are of the view that we have a product that people can support, there will also be a fairly intensive period of consultation with constituents. The leadership council will have to go out and talk to the chiefs in communities. They've already made it clear to us that this is of such import….

We will want to talk to British Columbians, as well, to ensure that there's a measure of understanding about what has taken place here. We're anxious to see this work completed, but the parties understand that this cannot be imposed on people. They must have sufficient understanding of what it is and what it is intended to accomplish.

I think that we can do it; I think that it is worth doing. But that is not to say that it is going to be easy. It's why we've got the people involved who we have involved.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. Maybe I misspoke, but I don't think so. I suggested that this just began in the fall when this was received, because I asked the minister when he began working on this, and he said in the fall of 2007. That certainly coincides with when I received this copy. I think it was cc'd to me at the same time that it would have gone to the minister. So I made the assumption, maybe wrongly so, based on an answer that the minister had delivered just a little while ago.

The new relationship is…. Well, Chief Sayers said this last week. She said that it's a lot like the old relationship and that maybe we need a newer relationship that actually recognizes reconciliation. So all is not well. Then again, that's another thing the Auditor General said — that that isn't being disclosed.

I don't want these challenges to go unnoticed, and they shouldn't be unnoticed by all of us in this place. There are 79 MLAs from both sides of the House. I agree with the minister that whatever comes out of this — and I'm hopeful that we'll have significant resources put towards this important priority, which is an act that somehow formalizes the new relationship — it should be done in an open and inclusive way.

It's going to involve all first nations, not just the leadership council — and it must get their approval; I agree with that process and that statement by the minister — and involve non–first nations and communities, and also us legislators. We all have to know the importance of the priority of this.

I suggest once again, respectfully, that the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs should be involved in this. That'll ensure a process where all MLAs have an understanding and the ability to be involved in this important piece of legislation that's being proposed. Adequate resources should be provided through budget by the minister. That would be the appropriate means for dealing with that in an open and inclusive way. I just lay that out as a friendly suggestion to the minister.

Just to finish off on this, because there are a lot of issues and we don't have much time left, does the minister anticipate…? Are there going to be sufficient resources to bring back something by the fall?

The Chair: I just, again, want to say…. I know this is back and forth. I've tried to sort of let this go, but to be honest — and I say this in the friendliest way — I'm still not quite convinced that you're not still talking about the need for the legislation, the timing for the

legislation and who would be involved in the legislation. So again, I just say that legislation or need for it is not really the purview. I understand when you touch on resources, but it's a fine line here.

I think the resources will be there. The resources alone won't guarantee success. This is one of those projects on which it's very important, as we've discussed…. It touches on a whole range of issues, goes to how we interact with one another, and not just in an abstract way. How do we interact on a day-to-day basis with the myriad of referrals and activities that take place on the land base?

This goes to the heart of how we live and work with one another and interact on a government-to-government basis. I think the member knows that and has said as much. That's why we think it's important.

The last thing I want to say…. It was brought to my attention — just for an opportunity for the member to check his notes — and I didn't have any independent recollection of this. The document, the proposal from the leadership council, I'm advised, was delivered to government in February of 2008. As I say, I don't have an independent recollection, but the suggestion is that whilst the leadership council may have been working on it through the fall, it was actually delivered to the government, and perhaps the opposition, in February of this year.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. He may be correct. I don't have a date on this. I was going by my own recollection. It seemed like a number of months ago.

Being mindful of Madam Chair's ruling on this, I'll move off of this topic. I know I was on the edge. But there are budgetary considerations, and I don't know how else to get the information. So that's fair enough.

One issue that has been brought up — certainly, I believe it was in the throne speech by the Premier — directly relating to aboriginal affairs is Jordan's principle. For those that may not be aware, Jordan's principle is dealing with the problems created by the disagreement about who is responsible on reserve for children — especially children with unusual medical needs, for instance — because on reserve is a federal issue, and health care is a provincial issue.

This is not something that is unique to British Columbia. Jordan's principle refers to that problem where children, the most vulnerable of children on reserve, often fall through the cracks of federal and provincial jurisdiction.

It's tragic. The story of Jordan, who was a little four-year-old boy, I think…. I'm seeing nods here. People are familiar with that. I took the opportunity the first year here — so almost three years ago, I guess — to raise this in the House with the former minister and the former Minister of Children and Families. I took the opportunity and the liberty in this House, in this Committee A, to read into the record Jordan's principle.

The motive for that at the time was a specific one, although not exclusively so. A little girl, Alicia-Anne in Ahousat, has a condition called Usher syndrome. She was not getting the resources, the family was not getting the resources, to deal with this complex condition that was progressing, a congenital disease. I will note that subsequent to that, resources did go there. I thank government for taking that seriously.

My understanding is that with that raised, there were other families and other children that were identified with similar conditions who were falling through the cracks of not getting resources because of that federal-provincial dispute about who was responsible.

When I heard, in this last throne speech, the Premier talk about supporting Jordan's principle, it made me quite happy. I'm sure all of us care about children that should be cared for, and whoever has to pay is another issue that shouldn't have to be…. That burden shouldn't be on the child or on the family.

With the announcement that the Premier supports Jordan's principle, can the minister give us any details as to how that support will be forthcoming? I couldn't find anything, and I might have missed it in the service plan. Where exactly will we see that support coming?

Hon. M. de Jong: I appreciate the member raising the issue, because it does afford us an opportunity to recognize the fact that the commitment has been made and I think it is precedent-setting for any provincial jurisdiction in the country. The point the member has made….

Jordan's principle is about the fact that it's child first, safety first. Let's not get mired in jurisdictional disputes when the life or safety of a child is at stake. So I appreciate the member raising the issue here.

I've always disliked providing answers that go like this, but the reason that the member doesn't see reference to it in the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation service plan is because the matter is being pursued under the auspices of the Ministry of Children and Families. I think, actually, the member's colleague and the Minister of Children and Families canvassed this somewhat during the estimates of that ministry a couple of days ago, but the member's colleague would perhaps have a better recollection of that than I would.

S. Fraser: The colleague is here. I tried to follow that debate and the discussions as much as I could, but I did not see through that service plan or through the questions, unless I missed something — and I may have; I could be corrected — any resources being allotted to address Jordan's principle. I assumed that it might be handled through some other ministry.

With that in mind, I put the question to the minister here, because this statement is important and I understand that. Certainly, in a symbolic way, raising that attention is important, because we all need to know when injustice happens and try to fix it.

If I'm correct, there are no resources from the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation to address Jordan's principle. There's no funding that's there in the budget. That's not being handled through this ministry at all.

Hon. M. de Jong: The fiscal component involved in adopting, pursuing and applying Jordan's principle is, as the member has suggested, contained within the Ministry of Children and Families and not the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation.

S. Fraser: Hon. Chair, we have musical chairs; no pun intended. You're back again.

You know, in some ways it follows the same line here. Jordan's principle is dealing with a health issue with children specifically on reserve — a jurisdictional dispute, if that's the right word, federally and provincially that had to be rectified.

I'd like to throw another example at the minister to see where we can go with it. I've made note of this before. In Ahousat there are dire conditions, housing-wise — inadequate housing and, in some ways, unsafe housing, specifically mould issues. Again, this is a federal responsibility in the sense that it's on reserve, but it's definitely a health issue, which makes it potentially a provincial issue. Mould, as we all know, has a greater effect, a more damaging effect, on young lungs. Children are more affected by contact with the mould.

Are there any resources anticipated that could come through Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation to try to address, again, a similar situation? I don't see where the funds are coming to address the problem. I know that the government has received information about the problem from Ahousat, from Chief Atleo, that there is a problem. How can the minister help with this?

Hon. M. de Jong: I heard the member allude to this earlier, and I'm glad he's raised it again. I agree with him about the significance of the problem. I don't know if there's a better example of good intentions misdirected.

Some of these houses that, I guess, someone decided at some point a few years ago to build — and I'm not going to question the motivation…. You build a house, frame it with OSB in a climate that is next to an ocean, and it shouldn't surprise anyone that there's stuff growing out of the walls a few years later. Some of this is really bad.

You go up and down the coast, and there are lots of examples. The member has mentioned one community, Ahousat. I can advise the member and the committee that I'm meeting again with the chief here in the next few days. I also want to alert the member and the committee to…. When I say stay tuned, I mean stay tuned over the next few days as opposed to the next few months.

We have tried to, I think successfully, engage the federal government to try and take some concrete steps. By the way, I think that the member is right as well. We can hide behind the jurisdictional issues, but on-reserve housing, improperly addressed, becomes in many cases a health issue off of the reserve. The costs all accrue. You know, it's time that everyone got together and various levels of government got together and decided: "Let's deal with this; let's address it."

We're having discussions with the Cowichan first nation about some very interesting, novel and exciting housing initiatives. There's cross-departmental support for this within the government of British Columbia — the Housing ministry, the Health ministry.

I should say this as well. In some cases we are trying to say to first nations: "If you are interested, let's talk about a new form of incremental treaty. If we can't take the single step, how about a series of smaller steps and start to address some of these issues, as well, and get some resources?"

But let's do it right, and let's do it smart. Let's not think that someone can design a housing package in Ottawa, or in Place du Portage, wherever, on the Gatineau side of the river — I don't think they call it Hull anymore — and pretend that the house you build in Saskatchewan is the same house you're going to build in Ahousat or Oweekeno or somewhere else on the coast.

I don't want to pre-empt what we're close to finalizing, but I'm going to encourage the member to…. We'll try and get you some material, probably in the next couple of weeks — before the House rises, in any event — that I think will signal a new approach or at least a coordinated approach to housing.

Of course, there are two components to it. We have spoken here about the on-reserve component, but there are some significant problems for off-reserve housing as well that need to be addressed.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that and for the recognition of the issue and the problems. I understand the challenges. Sometimes the federal government has their own way of dealing with things that aren't always reflective of the needs of some of the further regions — ichthyologists from Saskatchewan, from DFO, making decisions out on the coast here. We have seen examples of that where it hasn't necessarily worked, and I think using local expertise, and certainly through provincial authorities, is a much wiser way to go. That's a challenge because of just how everything is set up through the Indian Act and the responsibilities that are federal. The solutions are often not there.

I would hope that there would be some ability to think out of the box here. We've got a number of issues. I'll use Ahousat as an example, because it's near and dear to me. I have spent time there, and I know a lot of people, but I'm sure it's reflective all across the province.

It's a very isolated community in Clayoquot Sound, and there's a high unemployment rate. A few years ago we certainly had a high incidence of attempted suicide and youth suicide, and some of the desperate situations that occur with Third World conditions, poverty conditions, that are appalling by anybody's standards from a worldwide perspective, let alone in this country and in this province.

We've had disagreements, the minister and I, over things like forest and range agreements — FRAs, FROs — and how they haven't been very effective for a lot of the first nations. They simply haven't. The scale is too small, and the resources aren't there. But what an opportunity could come here.

In the case of Ahousat you've got high unemployment and the need for training youth just to keep them there and, actually, to keep hope and to bring prosperity. This is a proud fishing community that has lost the ability to utilize its natural resources in the area. If it had access to not just fibre resources but actually a small processing facility, an efficient processing facility for timber, you could see an economic benefit there. You could see job opportunities there. You could see training opportunities there.

Also, you could see the production and the use of local wood, done sustainably, which would be, I would suggest, very useful in building any housing program that would be there to ameliorate the problems there. A lot of those houses simply have to be removed and started from scratch. The minister is correct that whoever made the decisions of how to go about making those was not very knowledgable about west coast conditions. It is a rain forest, after all.

I would lay that suggestion to the minister that help, and not just help in saying, "Let's have somebody come in and build houses…." Bring in master carpenters. You can train people on how to become carpenters. These are transferable jobs. They are valuable skills. They would also serve to rebuild the community, which would build a lot of hope and, I think, a lot of pride that should be there and isn't always anymore, because of the conditions of poverty and unemployment.

Of course, the region, Tofino and Ucluelet, is also quite booming. I suggest that there might be continued economic activity that could be sustainable for the future too. It always came to mind here, when the housing issue came up, that there would be several win-wins that could happen if we all allow ourselves to think outside of the box and don't go: "It's a federal issue. It's on reserve."

We've come a long way since that, and I think that Jordan's principle helped to open the door to that, understanding that if there's an issue that affects the health and well-being of people in this province, whether they're aboriginal or not, the provincial government has to take a role there.

If it's a problem of jurisdiction, that problem should be duked out between the provincial government and the federal government, but it should not stop the resources from flowing. If we have to do it, as a province, to fix that problem, then we can go and arm-wrestle the federal authorities to get the resources back that they should maybe have been responsible for in the first place. All right.

A totally different question. In Ahousat there are road issues and health issues associated with this — huge dust problems, rain forest though it may be. In the summertime the road situation creates a huge amount of dust. It comes right into the houses. It's a problem. It's a health problem in a similar way that the mould is, especially for children who might be prone to asthma and that sort of thing.

Is there anything that the minister can do or suggest as the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation? Are there any resources that you can bring to bear? I know that the ministry isn't specifically engaged in roadbuilding, but it is a problem. It's a problem for aboriginal relations and reconciliation, and it's a health problem.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think I'd approach this in two different ways. For one, I'd like to draw the member's attention to an initiative that he may already be aware of, a leadership initiative involving the Nuu-chah-nulth, the province and the federal government designed to develop leadership and entrepreneurial innovation within the community.

This ministry has committed upwards of $600,000 to the initiative and to the community over the next two years, so those are relatively significant dollars. That wouldn't be sufficient to build a lot of road, but it is significant nonetheless.

There's another component to this that I do intend to discuss again with Chief Atleo. It's some of the opportunities that might present themselves, were we to adopt an incremental approach to the treaty process, and whether we can free up some resources. Part of our interest there relates to the fact that the success of the relationship, the success of the treaty agreement, is tied very much to the development of economic opportunities for the community.

The member pointed out the relatively isolated nature of the Ahousat community, but even that is changing a little bit. It's such a beautiful part of the world and the province, that there is increased traffic taking place, so there are potentially some opportunities.

How can the community utilize that, and is it a case of taking a few incremental steps that might allow them to do so? We're open to having that discussion. That might see the transfer of some resources and see some things happen in advance of the complete final agreement being finalized. Or it could in the model that we're prepared to discuss.

In fairness, I would say to communities that that doesn't mean negotiating all of the benefits of a treaty in their entirety and leaving all of the tough stuff for some other day. We have to take a measured approach here. But land, resources and partial payment out of federal dollars — these are things that the government of British Columbia is prepared to advance on an incremental basis, contrary to what has been the program thus far, which is that it all comes at once at the end.

That may represent an opportunity for the Ahousat community and other communities. It's certainly something we are exploring in detail with a number of aboriginal first nation communities in British Columbia now. Ahousat might be an appropriate candidate, and it's something that I'll be discussing with Chief Atleo in the next few days.

I'll note a few other challenges not unique to Ahousat, but it's certainly a good opportunity to highlight them. Hesquiaht has similar…. Getting to Opitsaht — there are transportation issues.

Part of economic diversification and prosperity has to deal with access. With the cost of fuel at this point, it's the cost of running boats back and forth. These are essential lifelines. I mean, essentially, the highway ends at the First Street Dock in Tofino, but it doesn't end there. The dock-to-dock in Ahousat is a highway, too. It is the only access route — short of a plane, which has got its own challenges there.

We've seen, of course, the water taxi situation there and the ferrying of people back and forth just to get basic groceries and that. That is becoming a big problem and a burden, and there are no resources that I'm aware of that are helping the people from Hesquiaht, Ahousat, Opitsaht and, of course, all over the coast. I'm just using areas and first nations within my own constituency because I know them well.

Is there anything that the minister can suggest or has contemplated that might address some of the problems associated with that? Again, transportation is a lifeline, but it's also necessary for any plan for future economic activity.

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, we are always building bridges between communities, bridges between governments.

Hon. M. de Jong: As the member says then, we're twinning those bridges to ensure that the relationship is even stronger.

I was thinking about some of the things that are happening in communities where we have reached final agreements and of the Maa-nulth first nations. I think about what is happening in Huu-ay-aht, for example — the member is very familiar there — and how some of that activity and some of those resources are already being translated into things.

Partnerships are being created up and down the coast. Last summer we were in Kitasoo. We were in Gitga'at. We'd see some of the steps that are being taken. I think some of that can be accelerated through, as I say, the incremental treaty process.

I'll say this — not to provoke a free-for-all at this stage of the process. For some of these first nations, it's one of the opportunities, which exists for them on two levels, in some cases. It exists for them to get their communities off of diesel generation.

The member talked about the cost of the boats. Some of these communities are on diesel generation. Besides the noise and the crap that gets spewed into the atmosphere, that is horribly expensive. They are funded by the federal government on the basis of calculations that might have been applicable ten years ago — never mind where the price of fuel has gone today.

Some of those communities have an opportunity to address that locally and to generate additional resources through run-of-the-river power generation. The member probably knows that they don't feel like they're getting a lot of support from one side of the House.

Hon. M. de Jong: That's fine. The member says they're doing their job, but I think our job also involves examining where these economic opportunities exist and responsibly providing people with the means to take advantage of that opportunity where they can.

The member knows that, in that case, the opportunity is twofold: (1) to get a community off diesel generation, and (2) in some cases, not all, to generate — pardon the pun — some additional fiscal resources.

So my plea, not just to the member but to Her Majesty's official opposition, is that in pursuit of their duties and in what I have interpreted to be a fairly blanket condemnation of run-of-the-river green energy production, they also be mindful of the fact that they are…. As one of the chiefs said, coming out of a meeting at Campbell River — this wasn't me — where he wasn't even permitted to speak….

Hon. M. de Jong: The point — I hope members will appreciate it — was to simply ask members of the opposition to be mindful that, given the discussion we're having and the interest there is in developing and providing for economic development opportunity, Chief Brown of the Klahoose was very angry. The member says that he wasn't denied an opportunity to speak. That's what he was reported as saying: "They wouldn't let me speak." By virtue of the position that they, the opposition, are taking, they are, in his words, "compromising our economic opportunities."

The opposition has a job to do. It is to ensure that projects that are advanced do so in an environmentally responsible way. That is something that the government takes very seriously, but the opposition will take their responsibilities to critique on that basis very seriously.

I have to acknowledge the fact, and do, that there are some aboriginal communities and leaders who are not always pleased with decisions that I or the government make, and they express that displeasure. In

this case, that is happening with respect to decisions the opposition has taken. They have taken, I think, a position with respect to this potential economic development opportunity. A lot of first nations aren't very happy about it.

Hon. M. de Jong: Oh, the member says that some are. Well, I guess some are, but a lot aren't. I'm hopeful, as we pursue what I think is a bipartisan and a jointly held desire to see economic development advance for first nations communities, that the opposition will demonstrate a little more sensitivity to the aspirations of some first nations who are interested in exploring those opportunities than they appear to have done thus far.

S. Fraser: I would expect a little more sensitivity and accuracy out of the minister on this. He's dropped the level of this conversation a little bit.

My question was regarding the dire transportation problems with the cost of fuel. The minister didn't answer that question at all. So I'm going to assume that he's not looking to help there, which is a problem. I'll be dealing with that one at another time, because I won't have time to do it here.

As far as the IPPs go, again, taking a first nations statement thirdhand out of a newspaper and holding it up as blanket support is not accurate. As my colleagues were trying to mention, certainly, he's ignoring the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs' concerns about IPPs.

I'll inform the minister — he probably already knows — that I attended the opening of the run-of-the-river project in the Hupacasath traditional territory, hosted by Chief Sayers and attended by others — Iona Campagnolo, the former Lieutenant-Governor.

Our problems, from the opposition, around IPPs are the privatization of our rivers and the fact that you've taken B.C. Hydro out of the works on that one and that you have basically made a cash cow for some big-business friends, in a lot of cases.

We've never had an issue with either local governments or first nations, through the auspices of B.C. Hydro and public power — in the right circumstances, where the right environmental conditions allow for it. The minister knows that, so I thought it was a cheap shot at this late time.

D. Routley: Since it took ten minutes to answer that previous question, I'm going to pile all my questions into one, because I feel like if I ask one, I won't be able to get up again. So get ready for a couple of different topics to be covered under this question.

I'd remind the minister — when he went on his diatribe about the NDP position on IPPs — that all German shepherds are dogs, but not all dogs are German shepherds. The NDP supports the idea of run-of-the-river projects when they have environmental integrity and when it is the wish of the local government, the wish of the people of B.C. But we also would insist that B.C. Hydro not be ruled out of that equation. I think that it is unfortunate that the minister would use the question of the previous member to make such an obviously off-track political statement.

I am proud to represent in the Cowichan region, the largest band in the province. It's a band that has considerable resources that other bands don't and that still struggles with the same kinds of obstacles that other bands struggle with: horrendously inadequate housing, income gaps and health gaps that wouldn't be tolerated anywhere in this world by any civilized nation or people. I feel that it's a real condemnation of the relationship up to this point. To call what we have seen so far a new relationship is just to insist on a description, not a reality.

In fact, the outcomes on the ground and in people's lives in Cowichan, in the Penelakut Nation, the Halalt Nation, the Chemainus Nation in Ladysmith and the Lake Cowichan Nation, not much has changed. Unemployment levels are still unbelievably high, over 80 percent.

The people are struggling. They're struggling for economic development, and what has really undermined their economic development, from the point of view of government policy, have been things like ferry increases of over 100 percent for the Penelakut, who are determined to lift themselves out of poverty. They are determined to address their own issues but are thwarted by the policies of this government, particularly around ferry fares.

My first question to the minister would be: has he taken any steps to guarantee the affordable passage of the Penelakut back and forth from Vancouver Island so that they can develop their community, so that they can be successful with the economic development initiatives that they do have?

Then I would ask the minister to comment on the Halalt Nation. The Halalt Nation is in the Crofton area. They are very concerned about the local government, which has drilled deep wells into the Chemainus River aquifer. Those wells are meant to supply large housing developments that the Halalt have not been consulted about. They are not consulted about the removal of water.

They are engaging in the environmental assessment process but have very limited resources and are not able to respond the way they need to in order to pursue or defend their interests. So I wonder, with my second question that the minister can address: will he step up to guarantee the Halalt enough resources to adequately defend their water resources and their interests?

The third question is around forestry and the Pacheedaht Nation, who have a partnership with the Cowichan Lake Community Forest Co-operative. That partnership is providing employment and training for Pacheedaht peoples, but because the licence is up for renewal and so far has not been confirmed, the Pacheedaht are very concerned about their partnership with the Cowichan Lake Community Forest Co-operative.

Has the minister taken any steps to support the Pacheedaht in their representations to the Forests Minister? Is he willing to help them and the Cowichan

Lake Community Forest Co-operative get a renewal of their licence and a conversion of it?

The fourth question is around housing. Cowichan is the largest band in the province, and yet they have an incredible deficit in their housing. There are over 400 families on their housing wait-list. There are the same problems that many bands encounter with mould and inadequate construction.

Is the minister taking any steps to address the housing needs of the Cowichan people, the largest band, and then one of the smallest bands, the Penelakut, on Kuper Island, who have housing that is absolutely deplorable and needs to be addressed? Has the minister taken any steps to address the Penelakut people and their requests for help with housing?

Finally, Koksilah Elementary School in the Cowichan school district. That school has been operating for three years with a program of choice that is delivered to their population of which all but four students are first nations. So it's somewhere around 98 percent first nations. It is a program that's been in operation for three years, developed over a 30-year period. Now that school is imperilled with the possibility of it being closed. It was up for closure last year. The community responded, and the board backed away. Now they're reviewing it for closure again.

The Minister of Education has appointed a special adviser to the board to help them deal with their deficit in their budget. The recommendations on Koksilah school will come down next week. I wonder if the minister is aware of that, if he's taking any steps to ensure that Koksilah Elementary School will remain open and that its groundbreaking cultural programs will be salvaged.

This school is not only a school of choice. It does not only offer programs to the children, but it also functions as essentially a portal through which the entire community is passing hand in hand from a very bad history when it comes to the first nations experience with education systems into, hopefully, a much brighter future. Even the grandparents, who weep at board meetings about the possibility of their children being moved or taken from them, feel comfortable and engaged enough to come into that school and provide assistance and guidance to the young people.

It operates not only as a program but also as an essential cultural bridge that has been built over time. Now that school is imperilled with closure. I wonder what steps this minister is willing to take to ensure that school remains open.

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for the series of questions. I feel like I've cheated him a little bit. He should have been here a few years ago when I really knew how to go on a diatribe. That was nothing.

Hon. M. de Jong: Yeah, well. I had best get on with answering the questions as best I can lest I be sidetracked into another diatribe.

In the order they were asked: The Penelakut. The short answer is that I don't have information at my disposal, but the member has raised it here, and I will endeavour to ascertain more about the details relating to the transportation challenge that they are facing.

The Halalt and the concerns that the member has relayed relating to access to the aquifer and potential impacts. The member I don't think had an opportunity to listen earlier when we were talking about the obligation that the Crown has to consult. Insofar as actions are being proposed that may impact upon this first nation and their traditional territory and that obligation accrues to the Crown, we take very seriously the need to discharge that obligation and speak with them, so I'm obliged to the member for raising the issue here.

I thought as I read through some of the Hansard Blues with respect to the Pacheedaht that the member may have pursued this with the Ministry of Forests insofar as the partnership with the community forest is concerned, but I may be mistaken. I will check on that, or the member can alert me now as to whether or not he did have an opportunity to raise that with the Minister of Forests.

Generally speaking, those discussions would take place first and foremost via the auspices of the office. If there is a specific issue concerning the discussion that the member wants to alert me to, I'm happy to receive that information here and now.

I can advise the member, based on my experience in the office of the Minister of Forests, that they have organized themselves in a very purposeful way to ensure that they are available to (a) discharge the consultation duties that accrue to the Crown and (b) try to help facilitate via the aboriginal forestry council the kinds of partnerships that are contemplated.

But I'll sit down. The member may have a more specific issue involved in the Pacheedaht situation that he wishes to relate to me and the committee.

The member has spoken about the Cowichan housing situation. I'll take a little more time here. I agree with the proposition that I think I heard from the member, that we are dealing with the most populous of first nations in British Columbia with an acute housing shortage, and we've got to do something about that.

I'm not sure if the member had an opportunity to listen to the exchange between his colleague, the official opposition critic, and myself on another housing issue that arises out of Ahousat, but in Cowichan the need is acute. It is immediate. We are anxious to take steps and, going back to the point the critic made a few moments ago, not constrain ourselves by jurisdictional wrangling and considerations.

This is a part of the province where there are immense opportunities, and the Cowichan, as the member who represents the area knows, have not been shy about moving aggressively to take advantage of

that fact. They are constrained by a housing shortage which, in part, derives from a land shortage.

We think we can work with them to address that. We are engaged in specific discussions. I have met, and officials have been meeting, with Chief Lydia, and I am very complimentary of the leadership that she is displaying and the enthusiasm and the passion that she is bringing to her office and her willingness to, as the critic mentioned a few moments ago, think outside the box for ways to address these issues.

I think through that initiative, the initiative of an incremental treaty, the journey for a generation initiative, that it will be possible to arrive at some very novel approaches. The member, I think, as a Member of the Legislative Assembly, is entitled to say, "Fine," but let's measure this by virtue of whether we've addressed the housing issue a year out or two years out. That's really where the rubber hits the road.

I think that we have the potential to do that. I think that the stars are aligned. I know that the Cowichan, through their leadership, are willing, and I know that we are willing. It may, I hope, excite the member a little bit to know that we are anxious to do, in partnership with the Cowichan, some novel new things that have not been tried, dare I say, anywhere in the country as a way of demonstrating that with imagination these obstacles can be overcome, and the focus will be housing.

I'm obliged to the member for raising the issue. I know he will be tracking our progress closely in the months ahead, but I think that it is going to represent a very exciting initiative and impact people in the community and on the ground in a very real way.

D. Routley: There was one question I think that the minister failed to address and that was around Koksilah school. Would he be prepared to intervene to ensure that this school remains open and provide whatever support is necessary to convince this government that it would be a bad decision or a bad outcome should Koksilah close?

I would like to further ask him whether he agrees with the editorial that was written, or the letter that was written to the editors by Chief Lydia and Chief Atleo regarding the implications to credibility of the new relationship that it would represent if that school were to close. Even the notion of identifying it for possible closure is seen as an insult to what has been proclaimed as a new relationship.

In terms of the Halalt water, I am pleased that the minister says he will speak with them, but the question was: would he ensure that they have adequate funding to defend their interests in the environmental assessment process? If the minister would be prepared to answer that question….

The housing focus in Cowichan, I hope, is not being lost until the immediate term before an election, because this problem has been languishing in the community. People have been desperate for a solution for a long time and have not had adequate response from the minister or the ministry. The consultant for Cowichan Tribes, the former Labour Minister Graham Bruce, has indicated that he has special advantage in appealing to the government, but we have so far seen little improvement in this situation.

Can the minister commit to something immediate or would it be closer to May '09 that there would be an announcement?

Hon. M. de Jong: Absent more information than I have at my disposal, I'm not in a position to offer the member the assurance he is seeking around the Halalt. I don't recall reading the letter to the editor relating to Koksilah that the member referenced in his question.

Fortunately, I can rely upon a specific conversation I had, in person. I know her interests and the strength of her views around the services that are being offered at Koksilah school.

I wish to emphasize again to the member the interest that the government has in ensuring that that unique opportunity is not denied to students. It has given rise, as the member rightly points out, to the intervention of a special adviser on behalf of the minister and Ministry of Education to alert and help the local decision-making body, the board of education, with ensuring that the important work that is being undertaken there continues to be undertaken.

I can assure the member, finally, that we are undertaking work with the Cowichan First Nation now, as we speak, as we have been doing for some time. The relationship is a strong, positive one. It has been strengthened by our experience around the North American Indigenous Games, which I have heard the member express his support for.

These will be exciting times in British Columbia and in the Cowichan Valley. In a few short weeks North American indigenous people will be coming from across North America and participating in a remarkable event. The government has been an enthusiastic partner with the Cowichan First Nation, and we will continue to be an enthusiastic partner with not just the Cowichan First Nation but aboriginal peoples right across British Columbia, in pursuit of genuine reconciliation and a new relationship.

S. Fraser: I do note the time. I just want to thank the minister and his staff for taking the time today, and I look forward to doing this again next year.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion of the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation and seek leave to sit again.

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