2009 Legislative Session: First Session, 39th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, October 19, 2009

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 4, Number 7

[ Page 1211 ]

MONDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2009

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

L. Popham: It is my pleasure to welcome my dad, Henry McIntock, and my stepmom, Leanne McIntock, to the House today. Leanne has brought her mom and her friend, Rita Sigvardson and Powell Hansen. Please make them welcome.

I also have a class from my constituency from Claremont Secondary School here today. Mr. Dave Gardner has brought his 25 grade 10 students. Please make them feel welcome.

Hon. M. Polak: In the gallery today are three very special guests: Bev Batchelor, Jordan Batchelor and his partner, Matt. Bev is a highly esteemed foster parent who has cared for and served children across Canada since 1976. Bev and her family took Jordan into their home when he was an infant and later adopted him as another member of the Batchelor household, which includes five other siblings, two of whom are adopted like Jordan.

[1335]

Jordan is a shining example of a young person who has overcome great obstacles, including battling fetal alcohol syndrome, and is now an anthropology student at the University of Victoria. He is joined today by his partner, Matt.

Would the House join me in welcoming them and thanking them for the positive role they play in their community in serving B.C.'s vulnerable children and youth.

K. Corrigan: I'm very pleased to introduce today three good friends and ex-colleagues from CUPE that are here today. Tania Jarzebiak, Bill Pegler and John Malcolmson. Make them welcome, please.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Just to add my welcome, as well, to the members of CUPE. I very much enjoyed meeting with them and having a constructive discussion earlier this morning — along with their president, who is not able to be here.

I'm delighted to also welcome Bill Pegler, Tania Jarzebiak and John Malcolmson. So again, will the House join me in welcoming them as well.

D. Black: I would like to introduce a couple of very dear friends of mine, Anne and Ed Nelson. They're visiting here today, and Anne has a very long lineage to some famous social democrats in this country. She is a cousin of Grace MacInnis, and she is a great-niece of J.S. Woodsworth. Her husband Ed is well known in athletic circles in Vancouver and was a member of many Mann Cup lacrosse teams in the '60s — and is well known in the athletic world.

I would ask the House to make both of them welcome today.

Hon. G. Abbott: Joining us in the House today are representatives from the Applied Science Technologists and Technicians Association of British Columbia. Those representatives include Tim Duerden, who is an applied science technologist and is a chair of the newly formed First Nations Careers Council. I had opportunity to meet with Mr. Duerden earlier today. They are doing some great work in building opportunities for first nations in the province, and I thank him for his good work.

Also joining Tim are the executive director of the association, John Leech, as well as Kerri Trace, who is the technologist today representing the association's TechGREEN program in the province of British Columbia.

Though I know that they have been meeting with other ministers as well today, I want to wish them well in their endeavours and, particularly, thank them for their work on behalf of first nations in the province of British Columbia.

D. Thorne: We have some guests today in the precinct from the Canadian Union of Public Employees. I would like the House to make welcome John Malcolmson, Bill Pegler and Tania Jarzebiak.

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the following: Report of the Chief Electoral Officer on the 2008 Electoral Boundary Redistribution; the Office of the Ombudsman Annual Report 2008/2009.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

DIWALI

D. Hayer: Mr. Speaker, today I would ask you and all members in the House to join me in celebrating Diwali. Diwali, the festival of lights, is celebrated by people of South Asian origin in British Columbia and throughout the world.

Diwali signifies different things to people of British Columbia, as it celebrates Rama's homecoming from an exile of 14 years and his coronation as king. This festival honours Lakshmi, the goddess of wealth, and it is associated with the goddess Kali. For everyone, however, it signifies the renewal of light.
[ Page 1212 ]

Diwali teaches us to end the ignorance that subdues humanity and to drive away the darkness that engulfs the light of knowledge — thus the term "festival of lights." Diwali also projects rich and glorious paths of the human kind, and teaches us to uphold the true values of life.

The Sikh community also celebrates Diwali in the memory of the Sikh's guru Hargobind Ji's contribution in the release of 52 Indian kings from the prison of Mughal emperor Jahangir.

[1340]

However, Surrey Diwali has always been a festival with more than religious connotations. Every year our city hall, with Mayor Dianne Watts and all councillors, host a big event in honour of Diwali. Our Surrey Foundation held a fundraising dinner in honour of Diwali on Saturday to raise funds to help many community organizations. Also, many business and community organizations and all Sikhs throughout the world and all Hindu temples hold events to celebrate Diwali.

The festival is truly people-oriented, where differences are forgotten and families and friends join to celebrate together. Diwali also brings together varying cultures and customs, making the celebration a happy occasion for all British Columbians.

Today I ask all members in the House and all British Columbians to celebrate the wonderful and exciting festival of lights, Diwali. Happy Diwali to everyone.

FAMOUS FIVE AND PERSONS CASE

C. James: Eighty years ago a group of five Canadian women achieved a landmark victory, a victory that would have a lasting impact on our nation's history. On October 18, 1929, after a campaign that lasted eight years, it was ruled that women were legally persons. The Persons Case ruling led to the first woman being appointed to Canada's Senate.

Today I'm honoured to reflect on the legacy of five iconic Canadian figures who were behind that achievement: Nellie McClung, Emily Murphy, Henrietta Muir Edwards, Louise McKinney and Irene Parlby. The Famous Five from Alberta will always have a special place in our history not simply for the victory in the Persons Case but also for paving the way for women's future success and indeed the success for our entire society.

Together these women became torchbearers for women's future political achievements, like winning the right to vote and holding public office. But their example is also an inspiration for all Canadians to push our personal boundaries, to help ensure that everyone in our society has an opportunity to contribute.

I would ask the House today to please join me in remembering and honouring those five brave women who together changed the course of our history. Let us express our gratitude by committing ourselves to build on the legacy that they left.

MARGARET EVANS AND
ROTARY HOSPICE HOUSE

L. Reid: There is a place of hope for those at the end of life. In Richmond it's Rotary Hospice House, a community which honours life, values humility and shares hope. Margaret Evans has been the executive director of Rotary Hospice House since 2007. Her work with Rotary Hospice House, operated by the Salvation Army, continues a family tradition of service.

Born in Santiago, Chile, to Salvation Army parents, Margaret moved to Vancouver when she was seven years old and grew up in several places across Canada. She currently lives in Vancouver with her husband, George. Together they have three grown children and six beautiful grandchildren.

To quote Margaret: "I find it is a privilege to meet so many wonderful, courageous people who come through our doors. I learn so much from their stories and from their lives."

Rotary Hospice House is located at 6460 No. 4 Road. It is a community-based hospice created by the Rotary Club of Richmond and the Salvation Army. It is part of an integrated care program with Richmond Health Services. Their ten-bed facility provides end-of-life care for residents with a life expectancy of three months or less.

Since starting up in February of 2006, more than 273 residents and their families have been served. Funded through Vancouver Coastal Health and the Salvation Army, Rotary Hospice is a non-profit organization that welcomes donations and volunteers from across the land. As well, volunteers serve, and continue to serve, to add that special welcome. "Volunteers add additional supports to our residents," says Margaret.

I would ask this House to join me in recognizing one of Richmond's finest local heroes, Margaret Evans.

Issues for children and youth in B.C.

D. Routley: I rise today to speak about youth in British Columbia. With our aging demographic in this province, youth become an ever more precious commodity in our communities. The value of youth has never been greater, particularly in our aboriginal communities, which have a reverse demography where so many in their population are under the age of 26. This is a great opportunity and, unfortunately, an opportunity that is quite often underutilized and underaccessed.

With child poverty rates soaring, we need a strategy to deal with the issue of child poverty. Nutrition for young people is important to their continued success in schools and their ability to access opportunity.

[1345]
[ Page 1213 ]

Local governments include young people on many of their advisory committees. School boards do the same. Youth outreach workers are an essential service to all of our communities.

It's time for British Columbians to make a reinvestment in early childhood education, in child care. Quebec has the best child care system in this country, and they have the highest participation rate of women in the skilled trades, and that has been directly linked by study. Taking care of children is essential to the success of all British Columbians.

I'd like to talk about a few young people. We often see young people through the lens of violence, drugs and gangs, but if you switch that lens around, you'll see optimism, renewal and hope.

Young people like Simon Schachner of the Popular Participation Movement in Nanaimo, a socially active, environmentally active group that challenges all of us to reassess how we live our lives.

Good people like Doug Creba, who is part of the Nanaimo Affordable Housing Society and works closely with young people in Nanaimo.

Steve Arnett, the Ladysmith councillor, is also the executive director of Nanaimo Youth Services Association — and young people like Simon Schachner.

It's our future. We should listen to our future.

COMMUNITIES IN BLOOM AWARD
FOR KAMLOOPS

T. Lake: As home to a wide array of first-class sports facilities, golf courses and as host of many provincial and international sporting events, the city of Kamloops is renowned as Canada's tournament capital. But after an amazing third Communities in Bloom championship, Kamloops can also lay claim to being Canada's flower capital.

In Vaughan, Ontario, earlier this month Kamloops was awarded five blooms and crowned as national Communities in Bloom champion, the second time the city has won the award. The trophy will sit next to the international championship awarded in 2006.

Communities in Bloom is a Canadian non-profit organization committed to fostering civic pride, environmental responsibility and beautification, and to improving quality of life through community participation and the challenge of a national program with focus on the protection and promotion of green spaces.

I know that in the distant past the semi-arid climate of the Thompson valleys led people to believe that Kamloops was a hot and dusty stop on the Trans-Canada Highway. But today we boast about hundreds of kilometres of urban and natural trails, spectacular flower beds and boulevards, the best sports fields in Canada, lush golf courses and parks, and a community that believes in environmental sustainability.

The Communities in Bloom competition is fierce but fun, with activities including the council pot competition — that's a flowerpot competition — in which mayor and council members are teamed up with a city gardener and a local business person to create the most impressive floral display in the major commercial areas of the city.

As a past member of the Communities in Bloom committee, I know just how hard the city and volunteers have worked over the past year to achieve this remarkable success. I want to congratulate committee co-chairs Jen McKinney and Gay Pooler, along with parks manager Shawn Cook, and recognize Kamloops Mayor Peter Milobar and his council for supporting this tremendous effort.

FOOD DRIVES IN VICTORIA AND REGINA

R. Fleming: Over the weekend the city of Victoria had a food fight with the city of Regina. It was not a bun toss; it was not an interprovincial dispute in a cafeteria. It was something that began with the Victoria Mustard Seed Food Bank's executive director, Brent Palmer, when he was at a Food Banks Canada annual general meeting challenging his counterpart in Regina to what was called the first Great Canadian Food Fight.

It was a challenge that both the mayors of Victoria and Regina rallied behind, to get their citizens engaged in a friendly competition for an emergency food drive in their communities to help those who are in great need in our community.

The food fight, as these things can do, did get a little personal. Victoria Mayor Dean Fortin said that he would shovel the snow out of the driveway of the mayor of Regina if his community didn't raise as much tonnage of food as Regina. In return, the mayor of Regina, Mr. Fiacco, promised he would come to mow Mayor Fortin's lawn if his community lost the challenge. Of course, you can mow your lawn in Victoria year-round, so that was an offer that could be redeemed at any time.

[1350]

There is huge growth faced by both food banks. The city of Victoria has seen food bank usage rise by 40 percent this year over last. This was done in a spirit of fun and friendly competition, but it is because the communities must restock their shelves. In my community we now have 7,200 families that rely on the food bank every month. This was, in fact, a very serious manner. Among that number, 80 percent of single mothers in this community, in greater Victoria, who have children under seven are estimated to be food bank users.

That is the challenge of poverty in our community, and I want to thank all of the volunteers and the donors in particular, who came out and worked for 36 hours on this food bank drive. I would like to mention a few of the sponsors, if I could: Save-On Foods, Dodd's Furniture and the Victoria fire department.
[ Page 1214 ]

Oral Questions

FUNDING FOR MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
ON VANCOUVER ISLAND

C. James: Devastating — that's how the families of mental health patients and experts are describing last week's cuts to mental health services on Vancouver Island. So my question is to the Minister of Health. Why is he ignoring expert advice, and why is he betraying people on Vancouver Island with mental illness?

Hon. K. Falcon: It might be helpful for the member to know that since 2001, the investment in mental health and addictions on the Island has actually increased by 50 percent. It might also be helpful for the member to know that over the next three years, mental health and addictions spending will go up 10 percent on Vancouver Island.

The fact of the matter is that there are still going to be changes. Even with a 23 percent budget increase for the Vancouver Island Health Authority over the next three years — 23 percent increase — there still need to be changes made to ensure fair services across the Island, not just in the southern part of the Island but the central and northern parts of the Island. They are making changes. It is appropriate to make the changes. We will be delivering first-rate mental health and addiction services on the Island.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

C. James: The minister can call them changes all he wants. These are cuts in mental health services that will hurt people in British Columbia.

The minister is going against all of the evidence that's out there. Report after report has shown that B.C. is failing those who have mental illness: housing and support for adults with mental illness, 2008 report; Victoria mayor's task force 2007 report; the Kirby report, Out of the Shadows, of 2006. All of those reports are clear proof that the B.C. Liberal policies have put more people on the streets.

Again, to the Minister of Health. Taking away supports from mental health patients costs everyone more. Why is this government ignoring the evidence, and why are they putting more mental health patients onto the street?

Hon. K. Falcon: The fact of the matter is that we're not ignoring it. The fact of the matter is that just as recently as March of this year, we added 21 new addiction and detox beds in Victoria alone. We have assertive community treatment teams that go out into the community, identify those with mental health and addictions, and make sure they are tied into services — not waiting for them to show up in a bed in a hospital. That's actually getting out ahead of the problem and making sure we're dealing with the problem proactively.

Now, I recognize that in the NDP world, any change is apparently devastating. Well, let me tell you that the communities on the central and north Island that are seeing $1.2 million of new services to help mental health and addictions don't view that as devastating. They view that as an important change for equity right across Vancouver Island. That's what we're delivering.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

C. James: I'd suggest the minister take a little bit of time to listen to the police chief here in Victoria. Here's what he had to say about these cuts: "Our workload will increase. We will see an increase of people on the streets in crisis and in need of care."

[1355]

He's not the only one speaking out. Renowned psychiatrist Dr. Donald Milliken said these cuts are nothing but "short-term political expediency." He said: "There is no clinical justification for these service reductions."

Even VIHA's own officials are admitting that these cuts are damaging. Here's what VIHA's director of mental health and addiction services has to say: "We are raising the bar for entry into acute care services. This will make it harder to obtain services."

My question, again, is to the Minister of Health. Is he saying that these experts are wrong? Why is he knowingly taking an axe to supports for people with mental illness and putting more people out on our streets?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, I'll tell you what's devastating, and I hope the listeners in TV world hear this too. What is devastating….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just take your seat.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. K. Falcon: I'll tell you what is devastating for mental health and addictions. When you're an NDP government that promises a $125 million mental health plan and doesn't deliver a penny — zero. Zero. That was devastating.

We have increased, as I mentioned, on the Island the mental health and addictions budget by 50 percent since
[ Page 1215 ]
2001. Those are real dollars, real new services. That's a lot different from the empty promises your party delivered in the 1990s.

Mr. Speaker: I remind members: through the Chair, please.

R. Fleming: People in my community are entitled to have a Minister of Health who takes it very seriously when our police chief raises concerns about the impact of these cuts on the homeless population, which has doubled under this government. When the former chief of psychiatry says that these cuts could actually cost lives in our community, and when the province's own top doctor, Dr. Perry Kendall, recommends more psychiatric acute care beds and outpatient services, the Minister of Health should listen to them, and he should act.

The province's best medical advice is saying: "Don't do this." The Schizophrenia Society is saying: "Don't do this." Law enforcement, downtown business, the mayor's office — all of them are saying this is not only cruel, but this is economically stupid to do.

So will the Minister of Health listen to them? Will he listen to them, sit down with them and order his CEO at VIHA to revisit these cuts now?

Hon. K. Falcon: Actually, what I will do is remind them of the changes that have taken place even in the last number of months — 21 new addiction and detox beds in Victoria.

I will be interested if some of the MLAs from the central and north Island stand up to complain about the increased services they'll be receiving as a result of VIHA making sure that those services are delivered fairly and equitably across the Island. I know that in the NDP world, any change is a cut. Every change must be devastating.

Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker. There are real, additional dollars. They are being spent equitably across the Island, and we will continue to invest in our assertive community teams to reach out to people in the communities, giving them support where they need it and when they need it.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: The Minister of Health knows, or ought to know, that before he made these cuts to mental health services in Vancouver Island…. They are already 100 percent oversubscribed. They are already connected to emergency room supports that cannot handle the flow of mentally ill people in our community using hospital services. This government has cut acute care psychiatric beds in this community by 30 percent since they took office. This makes those situations worse.

[1400]

I asked the minister a simple question — if he will listen to our police chief, if he will listen to community mental health organizations, if he will listen to the top clinicians in our community — and I got that answer. So I will ask him again. Instead of telling them the answer that we just got, will he sit down and listen to people working in the health care system, to people working with the mentally ill in our community, and will he have that conversation and reconsider this decision?

Hon. K. Falcon: Maybe the member should try and listen to the answer and understand why things are changing. I know that in the NDP world, nothing should ever change. Doesn't matter what evidence, doesn't matter what best practices you discover, doesn't matter what you learn, you should never change anything. That's the NDP world.

In the real world…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. K. Falcon: …as you learn things, you need to change and adapt the system of delivery. For example, the member should know that assertive community teams go out into the community. They don't wait for them to show up at a psychiatric ward. They go out into the community, identify those with challenges, hook them up with the assistance and support they need, and get them the care they need and the housing they need. That's what an assertive community team is all about.

Also, when we recognize that there is an imbalance between services south of the Island and the central and northern part of the Island, it is appropriate to make sure that you've got services equally accessible across the Island.

I know that the members from Victoria, in their little world, think everything has to happen around their little world. There is a larger island. There is a larger group of people that need services. Vancouver Island Health Authority is making sure that they deliver those services fairly and equitably. That's exactly what they're doing.

A. Dix: Well, the Minister of Health is engaging in a sad and dangerous experiment here. Every bit of evidence-based research says that there's a lack of mental health services on Vancouver Island, and he's cutting acute care services here.

Now, the minister gets all angry, and he gets all political. His own staff person…. He gets all political….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.
[ Page 1216 ]

A. Dix: His own staff person, his own director of mental health services says…. He talks about evidence-based: "We are raising the bar for entry into acute care services."

Can the minister cite one study that defends this decision, one study that defends the fact that it will make it harder — not easier — to defend services? Can he name one such study today — just one?

Hon. K. Falcon: This from the chief of staff to the former government that delivered zero dollars for their mental health plan.

Imagine if you will, Mr. Speaker, that they announce a $125 million mental health plan and fund it with nothing. That was the chief of staff who signed off on that nonsense.

What we are doing is making sure we've got teams that can go into the community, provide the care, identify the people in the community and make sure they get attached to support services in the community. Yes, that is a change. A change is difficult in the NDP world. It is the right thing to do. That's what the best evidence tells us. That's exactly what they're going to continue to do.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member has a supplemental.

A. Dix: All of the experts say that the minister's plan will be a failure for mental health patients on Vancouver Island — all of them.

Now, failure for this minister may mean that he gets to move on to wreck another ministry, but failure for patients means the difference between a life of hope and a life of despair, sometimes between life and death itself.

When will the minister listen to all of the experts, including the people who report directly to him — including Dr. Perry Kendall, the chief medical officer of health for the province — and reverse these irresponsible cuts?

[1405]

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, let me remind the member again. A 50 percent budget increase since 2001 is actually not a cut; that's actually an increase. A 10 percent increase in mental health and addictions over the next three years is an increase, Member.

Now, according to this member, even with record increases, we mustn't change anything. The fact of the matter is I didn't hear that….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister, just take your seat.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. K. Falcon: You know, I didn't hear these members jump up and complain when we added 21 new addiction and detox beds in Victoria. I didn't hear these members complain when we put into place assertive community teams to go out and identify those with mental health in the area. That is actually a change.

The reason why they are able to reduce the number of beds is because you can reduce demand as a result of going out into the community, providing supports to people you identify and making sure you hook them up with the services they need. That's exactly what they're doing, and that is the right thing to keep doing.

FUNDING FOR CRISIS LINES
ON VANCOUVER ISLAND

S. Fraser: Our local crisis lines save lives on Vancouver Island. With no consultation, with no warning, all six community crisis lines on Vancouver Island have been told that as of March their funding is gone. All of the VIHA-accredited organizations have developed trust locally. They know the local issues, they know the local resources, and they save lives. These crisis lines, these life lines, are to be replaced by a generic 1-800 number raffled off to the lowest bidder.

To the minister: why is he abandoning people in crisis on Vancouver Island, and how can he justify risking their lives by shutting down our local crisis centres?

Hon. K. Falcon: Mr. Speaker, if you listen to that question, it is quite incredible when we think that we are increasing a budget for the Vancouver Island Health Authority by 23 percent, and we are asking them, as these members apparently support, to make sure they do more with the dollars that are available.

The argument this member is making is that it makes sense to have six different crisis lines as opposed to one that could deal with the entire Island. It is unbelievable. That is exactly what they should be doing at a time when a 23 percent budget increase still has calls for people that want to do more. We are challenging the health authority to be smart with the dollars they deliver. Of course they shouldn't have six different crisis lines. They should have one. I support them. It's the right thing to do, and they'll continue to look for savings and innovation.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Fraser: The minister's response is appalling. You can yell into the abyss of Liberal duplicity as loud as you want and never get an echo. It's bottomless. The minis-
[ Page 1217 ]
ter's priority should be saving lives, not trying to save a buck.

Hon. Speaker, these crisis lines save lives. They are already established. They've been developed, and they have the necessary trust and the trust of the people of Vancouver Island. They track and monitor those people. They are community-based organizations. They save lives because they are local.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

S. Fraser: And the minister is going to throw that all away for some experimental generic 1-800 line.

Again to the minister: will he immediately reverse these damaging cuts and ensure that our tried-and-true crisis centres, our crisis lines, can continue to do the good work that they do — save lives?

Hon. K. Falcon: There you have it. That's the NDP. Never change anything. The very thought of change is so frightening to those folks. It is unbelievable.

[1410]

He asked why we would engage in a process like this, what examples. Well, let me give him an example. We've actually got a very good example for the members opposite. It's called the 811 HealthLink line, where British Columbians from every part of this province can call a line — 811 — and can speak to nurses in over 120 languages to find out issues associated with health care or H1N1 or whatever the case may be. It's been a great success.

Oh, my goodness. How dare we think about replicating a model like that on the Island? To think that we might go from six providers to one and provide better, more comprehensive service across the Island. That may be hard for them to understand, but it is easy for us to understand because we want to continue better service for the province of British Columbia and Victoria and the Island.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

D. Routley: This minister is ignoring the importance of this local service. The relationship with local mental health providers has saved lives. The fact that these crisis line workers, local workers, know the people that they're tracking…. They build relationships. They build trust. That trust has saved lives.

Is the minister saying that the doctors are wrong? Is the minister saying that those who say that their lives have been saved by that trust relationship are wrong? Is he prepared to increase the risk to those lives by moving to this generic 1-800 number system without consultation?

Hon. K. Falcon: No. Actually, what I'm saying is that the member is wrong. The member is wrong because this is exactly the kind of change that we would challenge our health authorities in an era where a 23 percent budget increase — 23 percent….

I am proud to be part of a government, actually, that in the worst economic environment is increasing our health care budget on the Island by 23 percent. But you know, even with a 23 percent record funding increase for Vancouver Island Health Authority, it doesn't mean there aren't more challenges out there.

So they are looking at every service they deliver to ensure that they are delivering it to the fullest extent of their ability to do so. That means that when you have six different crisis lines, it might actually make more sense to have one providing a service across the Island.

The members doubt that. The members opposite doubt that — because any change, of course, they get hysterical. But the 811 NurseLine is a very good example of how that has worked across the province — over 120 different languages — to great success and aplomb recognized across the country.

That's what we're going to be doing with the crisis lines on the Island. That is appropriate.

RESIDENTIAL CARE FUNDING

S. Hammell: My question is to the Minister of Health. Can he explain why he feels that a senior whose income is $22,000 a year qualifies as rich and can afford to pay up to $1,900 more a year for residential care?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member is referencing changes we announced two weeks ago. The changes that we announced to the funding for residential care will see 25 percent of low-income seniors see a reduction in the rates that they're paying towards care, and 75 percent will see an increase dependent upon what their income level is.

What we have said is that all seniors in residential care…. That's not supported. That's not assisted. It's residential care.

[1415]

The complex care in residential, what used to be known as nurse homes, will see an adjustment where 80 percent of their after-tax income will go towards their care, with a guarantee that all of them will have a minimum of $275 a month in retained income available. That's the highest in the country — the highest in the country.

But there's one more very important point to do with it, and that is every dollar raised will go back towards providing increased staffing and increased care within
[ Page 1218 ]
those residential care locations to ensure that they continue to have the highest and the best possible care in the country right here in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Hammell: The top daily rate for residential care is the highest in the country. We are charging the highest in the country for our top daily rate. This government's version of making things equal increases hardship on frail seniors with limited income. A fee of close to 10 percent of one's income does not meet British Columbia's definition of fair and equitable.

Will you revisit your decision to target seniors for a $54 million revenue grab?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member is completely wrong to characterize it that way. The member is wrong to characterize it that way because as I pointed out in my previous answer, every dollar raised is going right back into the residential care system — every dollar — for increased support, increased staffing, to all of those folks in the residential care system.

Now, apparently the member opposite has a problem with a system that has people paying in accordance with their income. It is interesting to me that in 1993 and 1997 when the NDP increased the rates 47 percent on both occasions….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Falcon: On both occasions when the NDP raised the rates in the 1990s, 47 percent each time, the one thing they didn't do that we did is they never reduced them for low-income seniors. We did. It was the right thing to do. It's fairness, and it's equitable, and that's why we did it.

ACCESS TO RESIDENTIAL CARE

L. Krog: Now 91-year-old Violet Ferguson languishes in NRGH because there isn't a bed for her at the facility she used to occupy at The Gardens at Qualicum Beach. She's in the early stages of dementia. She's living now in a 90-square-foot room at a cost to the taxpayers arguably of close to a thousand dollars a day, when if she were in the facility that she deserves to be in, it would cost a fifth of that amount.

She wants to go home. It's not unreasonable. My question to the minister, who's so proud of the budgetary increase that doesn't seem to result in any improvement whatsoever in health care on Vancouver Island: can he answer today Violet Ferguson's family and tell them what he's going to do for her in her situation?

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm actually glad the member raised that, because I can. The good news is that when we — when I, in fact — first got elected in 2001, the average wait time for a residential care bed in the province of British Columbia was one year. That was your record, Member. Today the average wait is between 15 and 90 days, depending on what part of the province you're in.

There's a reason for that. The reason is that we've added over 6,000 new beds to the portfolio for seniors — 6,000 private rooms, better equipment, safer for those that are there — plus another 6,000 that were rehabilitated and renovated completely to make sure that we've got more options for seniors. That's exactly what we've done — over a billion dollars invested to make sure that we have more options for seniors.

[1420]

FERRY FARES

G. Coons: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. The rush to grab more taxpayer money through this government's deceptive HST has once again pushed B.C. Ferries to pile more fare increases onto ferry riders in ferry-dependent communities. B.C. Ferries have said that they need a fare increase to recover the added HST cost. The Victoria Chamber of Commerce recently said that the HST, the increased costs, will put approximately $6 million of upwards pressure on ferry fares.

So my question is to the minister. Fares have increased over 150 percent on some routes since 2003. How high is the minister going to let the fares get, and how many service cuts are on the way for ferry-dependent communities?

Hon. S. Bond: Let's be clear. B.C. Ferries is one of the largest and most successful ferry companies in the world.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. S. Bond: I would like to remind the member opposite that in fact, this government is investing record numbers of dollars — $171 million — to support ferry service in British Columbia, far beyond what that member opposite's government ever did.

I can assure the member opposite that the last group we're going to take advice from about how to run ferries in British Columbia is the members opposite. The last time we saw their work, their boats were being floated on a barge out of the harbour in Vancouver.

[End of question period.]
[ Page 1219 ]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Petitions

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I rise to present a petition from residents of Moberly Lake, near Chetwynd, regarding their Moberly Lake Elementary School.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call, in Section A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations — and in Section B, this chamber, continued second reading debate on Bill 11, Labour Mobility Act.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 11 — labour mobility act

(continued)

L. Krog: I'm delighted to carry on with debate on Bill 11, interrupted as I was by the passage of the lovely Thanksgiving weekend, which I'm sure all the members enjoyed and took an opportunity to visit with their family and their constituents.

As I said in closing debate on this matter on Thursday before that weekend, my sense was that as much as one loves the concept of labour mobility, one has to step back and look at what this bill is talking about in terms of government's ability, particularly with respect to regulations. That is a concern I have raised over and over again in this chamber with respect to this government's almost, I will say, chronic addiction to passing legislation that essentially turns over debate in this province to the cabinet chamber and takes it out of this chamber.

[1425]

The provisions of the Labour Mobility Act include such things as, in section 5, "A regulatory authority's ability under an authorizing enactment to make a mobility provision includes the power to (a) amend the mobility provision," etc.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

What we're really talking about here is placing even further down the chain the ability of regulations to be made and changed, which will have the potential impact, notwithstanding the government's protestations, of in fact potentially reducing the level of qualification — and therefore workplace safety — all across the jurisdictions where this act will apply.

Essentially, this act is going to allow the government to designate occupations where workers will almost automatically be granted authority to work in B.C. and use professional designations. It'll allow the government, as well, to order regulatory authorities to change their certification requirements, and without any debate in this chamber.

That debate, such as it might be, will take place behind closed cabinet doors. It's not as if we have the great advantage of that much talked-about supposed liberalization of British Columbia procedure and politics when this government came in, when they promised open cabinet meetings where we'd all get to see what went on. Well, that was fashionable for a little while, but like many things with this government, that fashion soon fell very much out of fashion and is no longer with us.

What we instead have is legislation now before us around labour mobility that will give exclusively to cabinet, without further debate here, the right to make any regulations it thinks, to make orders requiring regulatory bodies to change their certification requirements.

I'm not imputing to this government any impure or wrongful motives. I'm not suggesting for a moment that they won't be working in the best interests of British Columbians or of safety in the workplace or anything of that nature.

What we're really talking about…. Where this bill really has an impact is in the workplace, in the construction industry, in the business of this province. All of that is not going to be debated in this chamber.

I'm not going to have an opportunity to say anything on behalf of my constituents. The member for Skeena isn't going to have that opportunity. The member for Cowichan Valley isn't going to have that opportunity.

But cabinet will — this government, which has through its eight years in power demonstrated an anti-labour bias throughout. We have heard it over and over again from their members in various debates on many topics. This is not the workers-friendly party over there on the other side of this chamber. This is anything but.

This is a government that without fail, wherever the interest of business versus labour comes before this chamber on any occasion — whether by way of bill, debate, policy or public comment…. You can be assured of one thing only. The voice of business will be heard, and the voice of labour will be ignored.

That is the concern of the people I represent in my constituency. The vast majority of them are workers. Yes, they appreciate the opportunity to be fluid — to be able to shift from province to province, from jurisdiction to jurisdiction to work — to be recognized for their skills and their abilities in order to support their families, particularly in difficult economic circumstances as we all find ourselves in now.
[ Page 1220 ]

In difficult times my constituents — my workers, if you will; the people I represent; the people whose voice is collectively represented by the official opposition — look to government to protect their interests. They look to government to ensure that standards won't be lowered.

You know, I have no idea how many of the other members have worked in a mill situation or worked in a construction site or been involved with heavy physical labour or worked on sites where there is an element of danger all the time. You rely on your fellow workers. You rely on them to perform their tasks with diligence.

I see the Solicitor General looking up with interest. He gets it. He comes from a long career in policing. If you can't rely on the people around you to watch your back, if you can't rely on their judgment and their skill to protect you in the workplace, to save your life, to be acutely aware of the situation they're in, there is genuine and real danger.

[1430]

Every year I attend a remembrance ceremony to honour injured and deceased workers in my constituency — every year — and I'm conscious of it. I'm very conscious of it.

I've worked in those kinds of situations. I've worked in a sawmill and a pulp mill. I've worked in construction. I understand what it means. The fact is there are no guarantees as I see it here in this bill — no guarantees whatsoever that workers are going to be truly protected; that they will be able to rely on this government to do the right thing by labour standards; that they can rely on this government who, after all, when it came into office engaged in such a dramatic restructuring of worker safety in this province and the diminution of workers' rights.

We all know that employment standards in this province, with great respect to those dedicated public servants who continue to work in that field, essentially are so weakened as to be almost useless.

When you have a problem in the workplace, you go to them, and you're sent back to try and work it out with your employer. Then you can come back and talk to employment standards. That to me represents most clearly why, when it comes to this kind of legislation, I have no trust whatsoever in this government.

When it comes to passing regulations pursuant to this statute, am I going to trust that they'll be consulting around those regulations and around that regulatory power with the construction labour unions, with unions generally, with organizations and groups that represent workers or worker safety? No.

They'll be talking to the captains of industry, as they always do. They'll be talking to people to ensure that the interests of the corporations and the big money interests in this province that fund the Liberal Party…. They're going to ensure that their voices get heard.

But I am not at all convinced that the voices of those who represent their constituents are going to be heard. With great respect, it's not like the opposition will be sitting around that cabinet table. It's not like the president of the B.C. Federation of Labour or the safety officers of various unions or the shop stewards or the people who understand what it means will be around that table, considering what's going to happen as a result of this.

The regulatory powers are dramatic, to say the least. In section 9 it prescribes: "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations referred to in section 41 of the Interpretation Act." Sub (2) goes on to say: "without limiting subsection (1)." As a lawyer, I know what that subsection means. The door is not cracked open. The door is pushed fully open until it backs up against the wall. It's as wide as it possibly can go.

"Without limiting subsection (1), the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations as follows: (a) prescribing regulatory authorities for the purposes of one or both of (i) the definition of 'regulatory authority' in section 1, and (ii) section 3 (2) (a)."

Now section 3(2)(a) talks about "the applicable BC regulator for the BC equivalent occupation is a prescribed regulatory authority." I don't expect the average person listening to this debate to understand what that means, but I can tell them in general terms what it means. What it means is that, again, this government gets to make all the decisions without any reference to this chamber or the interests of workers.

Subsection (b): "prescribing occupations and classes of occupations for the purposes of section 3 (2) (b)." In other words, we get to decide to whom this legislation actually applies. So it's not like the member for Nanaimo gets to stand here and get another kick at it. When I'm finished second reading debate on this, and once we've gone through committee stage, I'm done. I don't get to speak for my workers any more on this.

The Solicitor General does, the Attorney General does, the Minister of Environment does, and the Minister of Health does. Are they going to be listening to the opposition? Are they going to be phoning up the member for Nanaimo or the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan and saying: "What do you think about this? Do you really think we should include this prescribed class? Is this a good idea?" I rather doubt it.

[1435]

When we talk in 3(2)(b), it makes reference to 3(2):

"A worker who holds a certification in relation to an extraprovincial occupation may, if there is a BC equivalent occupation, practise the BC equivalent occupation in British Columbia without obtaining the certification referred to in subsection (1) (b) (i), but only if…(b) the BC equivalent occupation is a prescribed occupation or an occupation within a prescribed class of occupations, or (c) certification is not required to practise the BC equivalent occupation in British Columbia."

Subsection 9(2)(c): "respecting the form and content of applications…." That's fairly innocuous. Of course
[ Page 1221 ]
the government is going to want to know what goes in its forms. It's just that we don't get to see what goes in those forms.

Subsection (d): "respecting information that must be collected and maintained by each applicable BC regulator respecting applications for certification under this Act." What we know happened under George Bush in the United States is that he didn't take on interests opposed to the Republican Party head-on. He just stepped quietly back — regulatory changes, presidential directives or, even better, just didn't do anything, just stopped funding.

There's nothing here that requires the government to take the steps necessary to ensure that standards for workers are in fact maintained and — indeed, I would argue — enhanced to ensure that in British Columbia we not only have high standards, but we should have the highest standards.

We know that in particular in a number of industries in this province, there's a high risk rate. The death rate is quite extraordinary. So when I stand here, I want to be assured, and I'm not assured by anything I see here. I want to be assured that people are protected.

Section 9 goes on to provide that the Lieutenant-Governor may make regulations as follows:

"(f) respecting the information that an applicable BC regulator must provide to an applicant referred to in section 3 (1) (a) in relation to the application, including regulations respecting the timing within which and the format by which that information must be provided; (g) respecting any rules, orders, forms and directions that may be desirable for carrying out the provisions of this Act or for regulating procedure or establishing practice under this Act."

Hon. Speaker, I suspect you are getting the picture. I've got in front of me a bill that runs to a total, not including the cover page, of 14 pages. I can't begin to imagine what the regulations under this act will look like if it's passed in its current form. I can't begin to imagine what the government may do or — even more importantly, arguably — what the government may fail to do because of its incredible bias against working people as I referred to in other examples earlier in my remarks today.

They can even prescribe, under (h): "if the parties to the Agreement have agreed to attempt to arrive at common certification requirements for an occupation, exempting that occupation from the application of this Act." So where's the commitment?

"We've passed the act. We want everyone to comply. Oh, and by the way, if we can't agree on certification, then we're going to exempt it." So some workers get to travel, and others don't — if the purpose of the bill is in fact to make it easier for workers; if this is designed for protecting workers; if this is designed to enhance the rights of workers; if this is designed to make it better for workers. That's certainly the cloth in which this government has clothed this statute. It doesn't seem to make much sense to me.

Then there is always that lovely catch-all, the one that lawyers love to hear: can make "(i) regulations considered necessary or advisable for the purpose of more effectively bringing into operation this Act and to avoid or remedy any transitional difficulties encountered in doing so." This is handing over to government virtually everything. This bill becomes, with these regulations, almost a bit of a joke.

Subsection (3) provides: "In making a regulation under this Act, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make different regulations in respect of different occupations or classes of occupations or in respect of different regulatory authorities or classes of regulatory authorities."

And it even goes on further in (4): "Regulations under subsection (2) (i) may, for a period the Lieutenant Governor in Council specifies, suspend the operation of a provision of an enactment if that provision would impede the effective operation of this Act."

[1440]

I'm just a simple guy. I read this section, and I look at it, and I look at it, and I read it over again. I just want to repeat. It provides that "regulations under subsection (2) (i) may, for a period the Lieutenant Governor in Council specifies, suspend the operation of a provision of an enactment if that provision would impede the effective operation of this Act."

In other words, if we've got a complaint from the province of Alberta that this act is somehow hurting their workers, notwithstanding that we've got good legislation in the province of British Columbia that may be designed to protect workers, this government, under this specific provision in this act gets to say: "No, it doesn't matter. No, we're going to suspend it. We can do that. Do we have to come back to the Legislature and ask for permission? No, that's a cabinet decision. It's all regulatory. It's all regulations. It's all orders-in-council. No, we don't have to ask for anything."

That's because this bill is so utterly consistent with the contempt which modern parliaments and legislatures in this country show for not only the parliamentary traditions of our political system but also the people of the country and the people of this province. It is this belief structure that says: "We want the general permission, and then just trust us. We'll go in, and we'll make all the regulations. We assure you, trust us, that they'll be in everyone's best interests, that this will just be fine, that this won't hurt anything. Trust us. We'd never do anything like that. Goodness gracious, no. We're the government."

You know, my dear friend Charlie Wyse, who used to sit in this chamber…. It's a bit of a joke. The other side may find it surprising. He said that the most frightening statement in the world was: "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you."

Well, hon. Speaker, it puts me in mind of what this bill says. "We're the government, and we're here to pro-
[ Page 1222 ]
tect you. We're here to assist you. We're here to ensure that you can move across the jurisdictions covered by this agreement and that everything will be fine, that you'll be just as safe in British Columbia as you will be in Alberta."

All of us know and understand that the trend of modern government and particularly right-wing governments…. I think it's fair to say that this government could be characterized as right-wing. I don't think even they would wish to disagree with that. It's an appellation I suspect they're rather proud of. They want to be associated with Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan and George Bush. They want to be associated with the opening-up of the marketplace and the destruction of regulation, the freeing of the forces of the market to look after everybody.

You've heard the phrase, hon. Speaker: a rising tide raises all boats. Of course, they never have any comment about the people who aren't actually in the boats or those who fall out or those who have no chance of getting in the boat, whether through disability or age or infirmity or other problems. They never talk about that.

What this act continues is this pervasive view that we just want to open it all up. We want to give up control of our institutions and our regulations and our public safety, if you will, to a marketplace that's supposed to protect all of us.

I would have thought that after the last provincial election, after the fiasco of being told over and over again that the deficit was only going to be — do the members have to hear it again? — $495 million and not a penny more, which instead turned out to be, well, $2.8 billion…. There's another zero and a little multiplication involved in there. Of course, that doesn't begin to take into account the fact that if we weren't getting the HST bribe in this year's budget, it would be $3.5 billion.

I would have thought that in light of the economic crisis, which even right-wing commentators agree now was a result of a failure of regulation, notwithstanding that intelligent, capable public servants in the western world generally and most particularly in the United States advised their governments and warned their governments in congressional hearings about what was going to happen…. Notwithstanding all that, in pursuit of an ideological agenda the United States continued to deregulate.

[1445]

Here we're just part of that great scheme with Bill 11. We're carrying on. We want to talk about labour mobility. Great, hon. Speaker, but I got no guarantees in this legislation — none whatsoever, nada — that say that workers are genuinely going to be better off as a result of this.

I'm not entirely sure that the next step will make business better off, necessarily. I mean, where do the standards go? Where, in that lovely long list of regulatory powers that I've read out in this chamber today, is it that there's some promise of a better British Columbia? Apart from the opening remarks of the minister, where's the promise?

We've heard a lot of promises in this chamber in the last eight years. I can't even remember all of the golden goals, but I can tell you this much, hon. Speaker. I think, by general agreement, we haven't reached one of them yet.

For starters, they've spent all the gold, and now we're so deep in hock in this province that it's beginning to get to the point where I think even the ministers, when they stand up and talk about the dismal decade, are feeling just a tiny bit embarrassed by their dismal record of fiscal management.

The three biggest deficits in the history of the province — two of them fall on this government's shoulders, and the other was a Social Credit government, their political predecessors. My gosh, until the last election we even had some of those political predecessors, who were Socreds, sitting in this House as Liberal members.

So what do I smell, and what do I see? I see something I don't trust. I see a concept of labour mobility that I like, but I don't see a guarantee of standards that will protect workers and will also ensure that when the businessman in Calgary hires someone from British Columbia, a worker from B.C. — or the protection for the businessman in Chetwynd who hires somebody from Swift Current or from north Edmonton…. I don't see the guarantee that when they hire that worker and look at that certification, they're going to get the same thing.

You know, when I go into a Save-On store and buy margarine or butter, and it's got a brand label on it, I'm relatively confident that if I went up to Parksville to a Save-On there or down to Victoria, I'd get the same quality. I'm relatively assured of that. I'm relatively comfortable in that concept. But I'm not comfortable in that concept under this bill before this House that that's, in fact, what we're going to get.

I suspect — and workers quite rightly fear, and people who work in industry, generally, quite rightly fear — that we may see a diminution of standards. If there is one thing that we are learning today, as our businesses try and compete with China and India — the growing powers on the planet — it is that we cannot win with weaker standards.

We cannot win with lower labour standards; we can only win with skills and knowledge and technology working in conjunction. We can only win if workers and business get together, as they have at Harmac in Nanaimo. They can only win if they get together, cooperate and drive it forward for the benefit of all of us.

I come back to it. There is nothing in this act that satisfies me or satisfies the opposition that we are going to move to a higher standard, that we are going to ensure a consistency so that you know that when you hire that
[ Page 1223 ]
carpenter in Edmonton, they'll be able to deliver the same high-quality product that they do in Nanaimo, when you hire that electrician in Swift Current or Red Deer, they'll deliver the same high-quality work they did a month ago in Fort St. John.

I would have thought, particularly with reference to the construction industry…. When you look at the disaster of leaky condos in this province, thousands — indeed, tens of thousands — of British Columbians have seen their savings, their homes rot away in front of them with no recourse. Now, as a result of this government's actions — no recourse even to a loan program, no recourse whatsoever — we are going to suggest that what workers do isn't important, that having skilled people working on projects isn't important.

[1450]

Hon. Speaker, you don't have to look far around this planet to see what happens when there's a lack of standards and certification in education of the people who put up buildings, for instance. We have seen, with numerous natural disasters within the last few years, the consequences of that — fast-growing economies where it's all about the buck; children, elderly dying in collapsed buildings.

That isn't just some engineer's fault. It isn't just some contractor's fault. It also reflects on the quality of the people who are working. It reflects on the workers as well. Most of the working people I know, the people who work in trades and in professions, take pride in what they do. They want to be assured that when they go home, they've done a good job; that whatever they construct is going to stand; that whatever service they delivered will in fact be the service that someone required and needed. They want to be assured that there's pride in their profession or their calling or their trade. They want to be assured that it means something.

You know, for years we've talked in this country about the enormous respect given to trades in Europe, as an example. Yet somehow here there's still this prejudice that if you've got some sort of professional certification, you're somehow better than a worker. Somehow the electrician isn't up there with a naturopath or a doctor or a lawyer. They're different qualifications, but never doubt for a moment that they don't each contribute something important to society.

When I see this bill, what I see is legislation that doesn't speak to that higher calling, if you will — that doesn't speak to ensuring that we get the best in every jurisdiction to which this bill, arguably, is going to apply, in the sense that our workers will be going to other jurisdictions looking for qualification and will be given, presumably, qualification.

My plea today, I think, by now is pretty clear. We want good standards. We want standards we can trust. We want standards that are debated here in this House, not in the cabinet chamber. We in the opposition are tired of seeing this government consistently ask us to pass bill after bill after bill that tosses all the decisions over to their side, where they can meet behind closed doors with their political friends and make decisions that impact on the lives of thousands of British Columbians who work in various professions and occupations and the tens of thousands of British Columbians who are going to need the services or buy the goods and products produced by those workers.

I think that in the 21st century we can do better in British Columbia. I would have expected something more. I would have expected this government to show the respect to the people who will be covered by this statute that those people deserve. That, it is apparent to me, is not being shown by this government. They will consistently try, until they are tossed out of office, to pass regulation after regulation pursuant to statutes in a power given to them that is unreasonable.

Hon. Speaker, I am delighted to have had this opportunity to speak to this debate.

S. Herbert: I rise today to speak about Bill 11, the Labour Mobility Act. I want to talk just a moment about the title. Labour mobility — certainly something that I'm a fan of.

Many of my constituents receive jobs all across this country, and a number have moved into Vancouver to follow jobs and have set up shop in the West End because they love the constituency so much. They love the neighbourhood so much. We certainly want to ensure that we can help as legislators to ensure that it's easy enough to move from one jurisdiction to another. I think that's something we need to do.

Now, the other possible title for this bill, I guess, could be, though — and this is where I have concerns — the "Qualifications might not be necessary" act.

That's the concern that I know my colleague from Nanaimo raised, which is that when you're doing the labour mobility with these regulations, which we can't see because cabinet is going to decide upon them behind closed doors, you might end up in a situation where in one jurisdiction the bar is set so low for you to become qualified in that career, in that occupation….

Then you want to come to B.C. You come to B.C., and they have to accept the very low standards that might exist in another jurisdiction, which lowers the bar for all B.C. workers who've put in the time in university, in trades colleges, etc., to gain the skills so that they can do their jobs in a way that builds the business they're working in — or the non-profit or the social service agency — but also builds the confidence of their colleagues so that they know they're speaking a similar language in terms of what the trade might be and that they can work together.

[1455]

Now, I certainly think this bill addresses an issue which has come up a few times. I haven't had constituents
[ Page 1224 ]
clamouring at my doorstep to get these changes brought in. When I've raised it with them — a number who work in the regulatory fields, which this bill applies to — they were surprised to hear about it because consultation has not been done with a large sector of the population that this bill will affect, and that is concerning.

I think that oftentimes with laws there are unintended consequences. Now, some people I know say that there will be an intended consequence of this bill, which is a lowering of standards so that you have to pay less money to ensure standards are regulated because the standards will have lowered so much in a race-to-the-bottom kind of approach.

As government, I think it's our duty to be doing what we can in a race to the top, so to speak, where we work together with colleagues across the country to raise the standards so that we all have similar standards which work for workers, which work for employers and which work for the provinces, because we all are affected.

We all are hurt when a worker is hurt. It's a figure of speech. But I believe it is very important that we recognize that the rules we set up in this place affect all of our constituents, affect all of this province, so we need to treat these debates and these discussions with the due diligence that is required. That's why I'm so concerned about the amount of regulations which are going to be left to the cabinet behind closed doors.

That makes it very difficult for the job of the opposition, which is to pick them apart, look at them — and for the public, who also want that involvement and want that ability — to actually see what's going on and be able to point out where there are problems, where there might be unintended consequences. That leads to the suspicion — when you hold the public out, when you keep them out from being involved — that we might believe there could be intended consequences, which is a lowering of standards.

Government behind closed doors doesn't lead to good decisions — generally does not lead to good decisions. Once in a while there'll be one that comes through which you can look at and go, "Okay, they needed to make this decision for a very specific reason" — for safety of an individual or something. There are reasons for some of this discussion.

But regulations which determine who gets to work where in the country, to me, seem like something that should be debated in the open, so that we know if we're going to be seeing a lowering of standards for social workers, for example, so we know whether or not we're going to see a raising of standards in some sectors. I would hope that this bill could lead to that, but with the way it's structured and how it's so unclear, it very well could lead to a lowering of labour standards.

That's also a lowering of standards in terms of what an employer can hope from a worker. In the goal of labour mobility, we may be actually throwing away some of the best things that we've got in terms of qualifications required in our province, but we also may be harming businesses and harming the average worker as well.

That's something that concerns me greatly. I would hope it would concern the government enough that they would actually show us what they planned on doing in terms of these regulations and that they would be done in an open and accountable way so we could all debate them.

The Finance Minister in his budget in February said one thing, which I think sticks with me, about the role of government. He said it all comes down to one thing, and that is confidence. Do you have the confidence that you can move forward and that government will fulfil its promises?

After the election I would bet it's very hard to find a British Columbian who has confidence in this government's ability to follow through on its word, whether or not that's the HST, the budget deficit, protecting health care and education — all these things which they said that either they wouldn't do, in terms of the HST or the massive deficit, or that they would do in terms of protecting education and health care. All those promises have been broken. We've seen the outrage and the feelings of betrayal.

Now, with an act like this, the government isn't — and I give them the credit — promising that they will have higher labour standards, because I guess they know that would be a big stretch for them. Nobody would believe them at that point.

[1500]

I say that as somebody who's watched this for a good long period of time in terms of how this government operates but also just speaking to my constituents, who generally provide me with a good barometer of where the government stands on certain issues. That's not one that they're remembered for, except remembered for betrayal of torn-up contracts and that kind of thing.

It does make it hard for me to have confidence — that one word, "confidence" — in this bill, that it will lead to greater mobility but will actually lead to greater standards and more safety for workers, more skilled labour, more skilled workers in professions, as I would hope a bill such as this would do.

I come back to: do you call it the Labour Mobility Act, or do you call it the "Qualifications might not be required act"? They're both possible readings based on what's contained in the legislation.

I look forward to the committee process, so we can get some of these answers, hopefully, on the table to have that discussion.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I also would ask government, when it's bringing more legislation to this House, to actually bring substantive
[ Page 1225 ]
legislation which tells us what they're going to do, which opens the door, which provides the opportunity for British Columbians to have that debate, to have that discussion, to have that second look. As we all know, when we open the door to the people of B.C. for their ideas and their support and their suggestions, we're all stronger for it.

I would hope the government would recognize that finally. We shall see, as more bills are introduced in this session.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, Minister of Advanced Education closes debate.

Hon. M. Stilwell: I rise today to speak in favour of Bill 11, the Labour Mobility Act.

I've already spoken to the many benefits that this bill offers, not only to British Columbians but to all Canadians. Our province and our country are part of the international marketplace. To be successful, we need to be able to maximize our most important resources — our human resources, and specifically our skilled trades and professions.

Labour mobility is not, as some have asserted, a race to the bottom. In fact, all employers know that highly skilled and trained employees are vital to their ability to compete and succeed in the global economy. Mobility is a truly democratic ideal, one that enables each and every skilled worker with the choices essential for their success.

When I introduced Bill 11, I spoke about the need to support British Columbians, to help them succeed through difficult economic times. I would like to quote the current Secretary General of the UN: "Human mobility makes our economies more efficient, even when they are not growing, by ensuring that the right skills can reach the right places at the right time."

It was also encouraging to hear others in this House speak to the benefits of this bill. The remarks of one member, in particular, resonated with the principles that we considered when we drafted this legislation. Here's what the member for Surrey-Newton said: "Labour mobility within the provinces and territories — who could disagree with that? I fully agree that labour mobility makes sense across provinces. There's no question about that."

Those strong words of support for what we are trying to achieve with this bill…. It is clear that labour mobility is a concept that people of all political stripes can get behind.

Across Canada, other jurisdictions have been adopting their own labour mobility legislation, ensuring their residents are given this opportunity. B.C. has been a leader, a champion of labour mobility, while the new national agreement was forged. The B.C. Chamber of Commerce acknowledged our efforts, calling our legislation "yet another proactive step for the provincial government, who continues to show national leadership on the issue of labour mobility in Canada."

Labour mobility is also gaining strength internationally. Just a few weeks ago, India and Denmark signed a memorandum of understanding on labour mobility. This is just the most recent sign of a global cultural shift where people are able to take their skills and talents to those places where they want to be and where their abilities are needed. This is the wave of the future.

If countries in different continents with vastly different cultures, languages and educational systems can reach agreement on labour mobility, then we can certainly do this across Canada.

In closing, I'd like to quote Paul Hoffman, who founded the Committee for Economic Development back in 1942. What he said then still rings true today: "The full potential of labour can be utilized only if there is mobility in labour."

To that I would add that it is our responsibility to ensure every British Columbian and every B.C. business has the opportunity to find the best match of skills and talents necessary to succeed.

[1505]

Now is the time for us to act for our province. Now is the time to move forward with this legislation. With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Stilwell: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 11, Labour Mobility 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.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call Bill 12, Ombudsman Amendment Act, 2009.

bill 12 — ombudsman
amendment act, 2009

Hon. M. de Jong: It's called the Ombudsman Amendment Act, but with its passage we will see the passage of the use of that term.

This is a short piece of legislation, but I suppose and would suggest, in a certain way, somewhat historic. Technically, what this bill does is amend the Ombudsman Act by changing all references to the position of Ombudsman from Ombudsman to ombudsperson. That includes numerous changes to the act itself and changes to the title as well as consequential amendments where the term exists in other pieces of legislation — other statutes.

There are transitional provisions included in this short bill that will ensure that other documents or legal instru-
[ Page 1226 ]
ments that refer to the old position of Ombudsman are deemed to refer to the new act and the new title and the position.

We heard earlier in the House today — from, I think it was, the Leader of the Opposition — a private member's statement referencing the anniversary of the Persons Case. That is a relevant reference when we are embarking upon a change of this sort.

Also, I am mindful of the fact that the position of Ombudsman, soon to be ombudsperson, has existed in British Columbia for 30 years. Indeed, this is the 30th anniversary of the establishment of the office of the provincial Ombudsman. It is also, I am told, the 200th anniversary of the creation of the first Ombudsman position in Sweden.

I am grateful to the present Ombudsman, soon to be ombudsperson, Ms. Kim Carter, for calling the government's attention to both the anniversary and this very appropriate way to commemorate that anniversary by making the change that this bill purports to make, or would make upon passage.

Ms. Carter, as the present Ombudsman, has made, I think, a compelling case for modernizing the title of the act and the title of the position. The term "ombudsman" is a Swedish term — not, I am told, gender-specific in that language.

I was thinking of that old commercial that used to apply to a well-known Swedish company, Swedish for common sense. Much of what the ombudsperson does and will continue to do is rooted in the principles of common sense, ensuring that procedural fairness exists for all citizens; where there has been a failure — as we sometimes say, someone has fallen through the cracks — of the large organizations that exist, that at the governmental level there is an agency and a specific person to whom they can apply, to whom they can make a case for subsequent investigation to ensure that they have, in fact, been dealt with fairly at every stage of the way.

I think that my sense is that in this House there is widespread support for the change that is proposed here. I am grateful to members who have articulated that support to me privately and grateful to Ms. Carter for calling attention to the anniversary and the opportunity that it presents to present this legislation and this change for consideration by the House.

[1510]

L. Krog: I am pleased to rise today to speak to the Ombudsman Amendment Act, 2009.

Lest the Attorney General start to quake in his boots, I don't intend to debate this very long, but I do think there are some points that need to be made with respect to this.

First off, I will support the bill, brief as it is — which raises the first question. Why, when we have a misc bill before the Legislature, is it not included in that?

I can understand, having missed some of the Attorney General's earlier comments, that perhaps the reason is to do honour to the office and the importance of it and the anniversary of it. I can understand that. But in difficult financial times the average taxpayer might well take a different view of it.

I'd also be remiss if I didn't point out that for most British Columbians…. I doubt very much that they took the term "ombudsman" as a term carrying any gender bias, prejudice or comment within it. I think most British Columbians who are familiar with the office and appreciate its enormous importance understand that the term in the native language from which it comes was in fact non-gender-specific.

Having had the great honour to sit on the committee that recommended to this assembly that Ms. Carter be selected as the Ombudsman for British Columbia, I am acutely aware of the skill, the talent, the ability that she brings to this office and her significant personal achievements in her previous career. She is a woman who has broken the glass ceiling on several occasions during the course of her career and is to be honoured by this province.

But I do want to make the point, as I said, that I'm not entirely sure this is going to improve British Columbia. I'm not entirely sure it's worthy of a separate act. I'm not entirely sure that it is going to add much to the language, because with great respect, the term ombudsman just has a nicer ring in the ear.

I'm afraid to say it. Ombudsperson sounds, frankly, awkward. We can pretend it doesn't, but it doesn't roll trippingly off the tongue. One can't imagine Percy Shelley coming up with this term. One can't imagine Margaret Atwood coming up with this term. Nevertheless, it is the term that from henceforth…. Assuming this bill passes — and I suspect it will — that's the language we're going to use in British Columbia.

Assuming that it's consistent with what's happening in other jurisdictions, there's no need to delay its passage. But I must say, as someone who represents the constituents of Nanaimo, where Pat Barron waged a great battle some years ago and was a strong supporter of the creation of this particular office in this province, there will be some who will look back with a certain sense of affinity and nostalgia on the passage into history of the term ombudsman.

Particularly speaking for myself, as a Norwegian — and the well-known love that exists between the Norwegian and Swedish peoples, of course — I nevertheless will on a personal level miss the passage into history of the term ombudsman.

As some of the members earlier in question period…. I believe it was the Minister of Health who said: "The NDP is always opposed to change." I found that quite shocking. I thought we were always the supposed engine of change. We were always on the cutting edge of change.
[ Page 1227 ]
We were always the people who were calling for change, and now we're being accused of being opposed to change. I just wish the government benches would get it straight. I mean, are we, or aren't we? Are they, or aren't they?

On this particular occasion I'm going to go with the change. So concluding my remarks speaking to Bill 12, I will support the Ombudsman Amendment Act, 2009.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, Attorney General closes debate.

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, then history is being made in more ways than one, as the hon. member embraces change — on this occasion, at least. I am grateful for his remarks. I appreciate him sharing candidly some of his observations about the change that this represents but do commend to all members these provisions and the change that they represent.

[1515]

It's always a little bit challenging for people to embrace new terms, but this is one that I suspect British Columbians will embrace enthusiastically and wholeheartedly, understanding, as they do, the important symbolic value that this change represents.

With that, I will move second reading.

Motion approved.

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

Bill 12, Ombudsman Amendment Act, 2009, 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 Bill 13, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act.

Bill 13 — Miscellaneous Statutes
Amendment Act, 2009

Hon. M. de Jong: As is customary at second reading — and I call second reading and move second reading of Bill 13 — I will provide a rather technical description of the provisions that are contained within the bill, recognizing that some of these provisions have attracted a measure of attention and will undoubtedly be the subject of further conversation at some point in the debate process.

For the purpose of completeness and as is the custom in this chamber, if I can take a moment to list what the bill purports to do and what statutes are purported to be amended here. They are as follows.

Amendments to the Adult Guardianship and Planning Statutes Amendment Act, 2007. Those provisions enable the incapacity-planning provisions of that act relating to advance directives, enduring powers of attorney and representation agreements to be brought into force independently of the adult guardianship provisions.

There are amendments to the Assessment Act that will ensure that new strata accommodation properties are split-classified where applicable to reflect actual use for both residential and commercial purposes. Those same amendments, or amendments to the Assessment Act, also broaden the definition of "eligible supportive housing property" to include those funded by regional health authorities.

There is an amendment to the College of Applied Biology Act which will give the Minister of Environment authority to ensure rules of the College of Applied Biology are not in conflict with the labour mobility objectives set out in the B.C.-Alberta Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement.

There are, as well, amendments to the Health Professions Act that will do a number of things. First, they will serve to clarify that forms established by a health profession's college registrar for use under college bylaws are subject to the same ministerial oversight as bylaws made by the college board.

Secondly, these amendments will clarify the authority of the Minister of Health Services to disallow bylaws relating to the renewal, suspension, cancellation and reinstatement of the certification of certified non-registrants.

Thirdly, they will amend a provision related to the disclosure of personal information, which is, I am advised, redundant due to the protections provided in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which will continue to provide the necessary level of protection related to the disclosure of information to third parties under information-sharing agreements with health professions colleges.

There are amendments to the Judicial Compensation Act. Those amendments change the composition of the triennial Judges Compensation Commission and the Judicial Justices Compensation Commission to increase lay representation on both commissions. Those changes support and strengthen the independence of the commissions and broaden the participation to members of the public unconnected in the traditional way with either the bench or bar.

An amendment to the Ministry of Environment Act will authorize the continued publication of personal information, such as the names of individuals and circumstances of violations, in the ministry's compliance-and-enforcement summaries to ensure that the public is provided with timely information about the compliance-and-enforcement activities undertaken by the Ministry of Environment.

[1520]

An amendment to the Medicare Protection Act clarifies the definition of "prescribed agency" to ensure the
[ Page 1228 ]
Medical Services Commission has clear authority to continue to audit doctors and health care practitioners for claims made against a corporation such as ICBC or WorkSafe B.C.

There are amendments to the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act which will provide the municipalities of Vancouver, Richmond and Whistler with temporary enforcement powers during the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games. The legislation gives them the authority to act quickly to remove signs and graffiti that violate their current and existing bylaws during the short duration of the winter games.

I am aware that there has been considerable public interest in at least this provision of the bill, and I want to take advantage of the opportunity in the chamber to ensure that the opposition, in particular the opposition critic or critics, as the case may be, are aware that an opportunity exists, if they wish to avail themselves of it, for a full briefing relating to the provisions and how they are intended to operate. The members, on the basis of that, can decide whether or not they agree. That's how they derive any measure of comfort from that information.

There are provisions relating to the Public Guardian and Trustee Act which will clarify the authority of the Public Guardian and Trustee of British Columbia to act as trustee by statute or agreement and will also ensure that there is clear authority for the collection of fees for acting in these capacities to remove any lingering ambiguity on that front.

An amendment to the Sheriff Act clarifies the roles and responsibility of sheriffs as peace officers in the justice system.

There are amendments to the Treaty First Nation Taxation Act, the Manufactured Home Act and Tourist Accommodation (Assessment Relief) Act which ensure that the Tsawwassen First Nation, as a taxing treaty first nation, is treated in a manner consistent with municipalities when it comes to property taxation powers and exemptions. The amendments will also be applicable to the Maa-nulth First Nations and other taxing treaty first nations after their final agreements take effect.

There are amendments to the University Act, Royal Roads University Act, Thompson Rivers University Act and College and Institute Act which recognize and authorize clearly the existing practices used by those institutions to regulate vehicle traffic and parking on their property and campuses. The amendments involve authority that government and the institutions themselves had previously understood the institutions to have.

Finally, amendments to the Vancouver Charter respond to a request from the city of Vancouver in preparation for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. These changes will clarify Vancouver's authority to manage various issues and operational requirements for the games — things like traffic flow, street entertainment, noise, and provision of temporary parking and structures. Those legislative provisions will help ensure that the city of Vancouver can provide a safe and enjoyable environment for residents, athletes and visitors.

It is important to recognize, with respect to amendments to the Vancouver Charter, that far from creating any new powers at the local level, the amendments are consistent with the authorities that all other municipalities have operating under the Community Charter.

That is a brief synopsis, a technical synopsis of what is included in the bill. I am certain that several of the provisions I have alerted to will be the subject of specific interest and discussion and explanation during committee stage of the debate and will look forward to participating further in the discussion at that time.

[1525]

L. Krog: Firstly, I want to extend my thanks to the Attorney General for the offer of a briefing. Having said that, and no disrespect intended to the Attorney General, when I hear him speaking in dulcet tones about how there may be some questions and a lot of explanation required around this bill, what I sense is that perhaps he has as many concerns as the opposition does, particularly with respect to changes to the Vancouver Charter and the enabling provisions, the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act as well, because those are certainly going to be the focus of the opposition.

I can't help but have a slight smile on my face. We're, after all, covering amendments to a number of pieces of legislation in this act, and the concluding one is the Wildlife Act. It would appear to me that the changes proposed to the Vancouver Charter and other legislation means we're really opposed to a little wildlife in Vancouver. By that, I'm not referring to the four-legged kind. I'm talking about the ability of people to actually demonstrate and express, in a democratic fashion, their views on any number of things.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

The fact that the Attorney General feels compelled to speak as he did of this legislation — being prepared to answer questions and so willing and cooperative — and also the comments that have been made by officials of the city of Vancouver and councillors there, again, raises for me significant concern. Sometimes the fact that people feel compelled to talk about something tells you that there's more to it than meets the eye.

I don't accuse the government or the city of Vancouver of any untoward intentions here, because I appreciate fully that there are obligations, contractual obligations, considerations around claims that could be brought against the city arising out of this legislation.

Given that the games are obviously costing a great deal, that we're spending $900 million on security
[ Page 1229 ]
alone…. It's a staggering figure, one that falls far out of the contemplation of the average British Columbian in terms of its amount. Given that we're spending that kind of money, one can appreciate that at the end of the day the last thing anyone wants to do is have to pay out, under contractual obligations to the IOC, to sponsors who have paid big bucks for the right to be sponsors. One can understand the concern about being stuck with further expenditure at the end of this.

So you really want to ensure that all of the obligations that are in place for the Olympics will, in fact, be met. One can understand that. But I remember a story some years ago about a conference that was in the United States. It brought to that conference, an international conference, peoples from around the world, particularly an African country. I can't even remember what part.

These delegates' vision of the United States was one created by television. They were astonished to discover that in the United States, there were people who lived in ghettos, there were people who slept in the streets, and there were people who were poor. That wasn't their vision of the United States.

Many of the participants in the Olympic Games will come from countries governed by regimes that are anything but truly democratic, where dissent is dealt with harshly, where sometimes the elected leader of the nation will be imprisoned year after year after year, where people will be suppressed.

So my immediate reaction is that I understand the concerns around the commercial side. But I'm just not convinced that given the investigation, if you will, that has already taken place of a university professor of ophthalmology, of a 73-year-old inveterate letter writer from Surrey, B.C., visited by two members of the RCMP…. I'm not going to go over the top in this debate, but I must say that it raises real concerns in my mind, as someone who believes absolutely in civil liberties.

I'm not quite out there with Ezra Levant, but my view has always been that wherever people speak ill, wherever they hold views that are repugnant to democratic ideals, to the rights of free speech, to the rights of liberty that we're all guaranteed under the Charter, to the right to practise our religion without interference, all of those rights…. If people are really opposed to that and speak vile of other groups or nationalities or faiths, the best thing in the world is to let them have their voice.

[1530]

So anything that, for me, offends the basic principles of free speech, that places some restriction on it — whether intended or not — is just wrong.

I come back to my point about the delegates from Africa and the United States. Would it really be so dreadfully awful? Would it put in jeopardy the success of the games if, during the course of television coverage of the games, people in other parts of the world saw demonstrations, saw signs, heard things said that in their own country would constitute criminal behaviour and would result in beatings or jailings or suppression? Would it be so bad for them to see it?

I'm not going to take a side in the debate around "Free Tibet" today, for instance, for the right of the Tibetan people to self-determination. That would clearly be offensive to the Chinese government because they regard Tibet as an integral part of their nation. But isn't it a good thing?

Isn't it a good thing if the world saw, in Vancouver and Whistler and Richmond, people peaceably, freely demonstrating views that are contrary? Would it be so wrong? Would it damage the games? Would it hurt for the world to see what a functioning democracy looks like? I suspect not.

I think the opportunity for people to view the kind of vigorous debate that is absolutely essential to not only the preservation but the well-being of democratic institutions — for people to see that — is a very good thing.

Again, I understand and am sympathetic to the position the city of Vancouver finds itself in. But I am not convinced by what I've seen and what I've heard — by what has happened with respect to the investigation of people who are opposed to the Olympic games — that really, we aren't using a baseball bat when a fly swatter might have sufficed.

As a lawyer, I completely understand the difficulty around getting injunctions. But the prospect that you can stick up a sign that might offend the overall Olympic agreement and the city of Vancouver sign bylaw, that you can be given a warning and that officers of the state, in the broadest sense, will be able to enter your domain and take down that sign without a hearing — without a hearing — I think most of us find quite repugnant.

It is one thing to take away something after a hearing. Even in this chamber we passed legislation that gave the government the right to seize property that appeared to be the result of proceeds of crime or related to criminal activity, even if there was no crime. We passed that legislation. But even that legislation contemplates that there will be a hearing.

I see the former Solicitor General looking at me, and he understands my point. You have to go to court. You have to get an order. You have to give someone an opportunity to defend themselves and to state their case. It is a fundamental principle of our justice system that you hear both sides, except in the most extraordinary and unusual of circumstances.

You're in a custody case, and the child is being kidnapped. You run into court and get an ex parte order restraining your spouse from taking the child out of the country. Not unreasonable. We accept that.

But in this case, the sign I stick up, if I choose to do so, will be subject to being taken down on 24 hours' notice without benefit of a hearing by officers of the state who will be able to come in and do it.
[ Page 1230 ]

I'm not suggesting for a moment that this will be used unreasonably or that it's the intention of the city of Vancouver and its officials, elected or otherwise, or indeed the intention of this chamber — or the government or the people who work in government — to unreasonably interfere with the rights of free speech.

[1535]

But the concept that you can come busting, literally, into somebody's private dwelling place — come busting into their private dwelling place — to take down a sign that may be a breach of a commercial contract, for heaven's sake, or alternatively might represent something that flies in the face of the right to demonstrate, because we want to control where you can express your democratic opinion…. That is over the top. That goes beyond what we expect in a democratic society.

Democracy is messy. It isn't pretty. It can be quite glorious when it results in a great movement forward, some great shift, but the road to oppression, to the tyranny from which we have escaped after generations of bloodshed — and I don't want to be overly dramatic — to fight to win the precious right to express ourselves on any matter freely and openly is not one to be blemished in any way, shape or form at any time — particularly when this is aimed at commercial enterprise and may well reflect on the right to free speech as well.

When one looks at law, you have to consider what is the evil or the wrong you're attempting to prevent, if you will. And is the approach responsive and appropriate? We understand that if you're shoved in the street by someone, if you turn around and shoot them, it's not a reasonable response. It has to be proportionate. So if you do shoot someone or you violently attack them after you've merely been shoved, chances are you may well be convicted of assault. You'll be sued civilly, and quite probably successfully, if injury results.

I look at the principle of proportionality in this legislation. I understand that what's being asked for here is that the Vancouver Charter be amended to allow for a fine of up to $10,000 and imprisonment for six months, which is consistent with provisions of the Community Charter for other municipal governments across the province. I understand that, and I know that will be part of the Attorney General's response at some point and maybe the Solicitor General's, if he chooses to speak.

I understand that; I accept that. But Vancouver has managed to survive without those provisions for, I think, roughly a decade now or something like that. I could be wrong. If my advice is wrong, I apologize for misleading the House. It's not my intention to do so.

But it's very clear this bill and these provisions that relate are all designed to deal with the Olympics. We want to put the shiniest face we can on good old British Columbia — three municipalities in particular, Richmond, Vancouver and Whistler — and ensure that the games, which have now become a substantial commercial enterprise, won't be tarnished by anyone who might seek to make some money off it when they're not footing the bill, when they're not a sponsor.

We understand the literally millions and millions and millions of dollars that sponsors invest in these games now and the $900 million that taxpayers, both federal and provincial, are going to pay to ensure security in these games, and the hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars that British Columbia has put into building infrastructure for these projects in order to support and allow the games to proceed.

I understand all of that, and I appreciate that. I have no doubt that the games will be a great success because when British Columbians put their mind to something, they can accomplish great things.

[1540]

But as we approach Remembrance Day and I look at that tiny crew of veterans who are left in my constituency, who will stand as best they can in the cold and wet that often characterizes that day…. When I think of the sacrifices that generation made in the fight against fascism, when I think of the sacrifices their families made, when I think of the parents who saw their sons and daughters go off and never saw them return, when I think of children who weren't old enough to remember their fathers who disappeared into the great maw of war…. When I think of those people we honour on Remembrance Day, I am moved by that.

What they fought for, fundamentally, was the right to be free, to express themselves whenever and wherever they wanted on whatever topic they wished to and chose, and to do so without fear of oppression, without the worry of being fined or imprisoned, and they did that.

They made that sacrifice for all of us so that we can all stand in this chamber and speak freely, so that if we choose to go out on the lawns of this Legislature, we can speak freely there. We can speak freely in the conference centre of Nanaimo, and we can stand in the streets of Golden and speak freely. I can go down to the West End and express my views, no matter how repugnant or repulsive they may be, on any issue. They fought for that, and we should cherish it.

As a member of this opposition, I will not support anything that tarnishes that great freedom. This is a serious debate. I understand we are caught up in the Olympic fever, and I understand that many will say: "The member for Nanaimo is way over the mark on this one." But there is a time to recognize that if you're going to do it in order to protect commercial rights and potentially seek to not have anyone offended who is a strong supporter of the games, it's the first step — might even be the second; I don't know.

Everything that I have learned in my life and everything I respect and value tells me that what is being proposed — how innocuous it may seem — is just wrong. It is not consistent with the best ideals of British Columbians.
[ Page 1231 ]

As much as I understand the councillors of the great city of Vancouver believe that what they are doing is necessary and commercially required of them, it is not sufficient for this government to stand up in this House and say: "We're doing what the city has requested. We're just giving them the opportunity." Then to wash the government's collective hands of this…. So if something offensive to those things I hold dear should occur, the government will be able to step back and say: "That's not what we intended. It's the city of Vancouver's fault. That's not what was thought of when we passed this legislation. It's not our problem."

What we're being asked to do is give enforcement provisions and indeed special powers to the cities of Richmond and Whistler and Vancouver for a limited period in order to allow them to enter on private property without the consent of the owner for the purposes of removing or covering up signs or graffiti — graffiti — that contravenes the bylaws.

You know, it reminds me of the typical excuse that you always heard from South American dictators when the military took over. "It's just for a limited period of time. We'll get back to votes as soon as we possibly can." I'm not suggesting for a moment that the legislation won't pass in that form and that it won't cease on March 31, 2010, but matters of principle are not to be compromised. Matters of principle are to be always respected.

I look back, as a young man, when Pierre Trudeau — in what I think was one of the most repugnant acts of a government in this country's history, at a time when there was no such thing that even resembled a national crisis — imposed the War Measures Act on the people of Quebec.

[1545]

I remember that at that time there were two kids in my law 11 class — myself, the lefty, and the son of the local mayor of Parksville, who was a righty — and you know, hon. Speaker, we agreed.

We stood in our little class, and we argued against all of our classmates that what the Prime Minister of Canada was doing was wrong. T.C. Douglas stood in the House of Commons and told the Prime Minister of Canada that what he was doing was wrong. Yet the commentators and the majority of Canadians pounded their desks and said it was the right thing. We were going to teach those people a lesson.

What has history taught us some years later? There was no real insurrection. There was no necessity. And the damage done to the fabric of democracy of this nation put us in a situation where nearly half the people of the province of Quebec voted to take Quebec out of Confederation. That was the result of a little bit of blemish, if you will, on the ideal of the right to free speech and the right to express your views.

I'm not suggesting for a moment that this will result in the same kind of thing, but it is exactly the same offensive thing to me in principle. You are saying that on this occasion, for the purposes of honouring commercial contracts, we are going to give special powers that wouldn't otherwise exist. The very fact that both government in this chamber and the city of Vancouver are so utterly apologetic about this tells me everything I need to know.

They know it's wrong. They sense it's wrong. They sense it's too far. I haven't heard one excuse from anyone in this province — one explanation as to why it's necessary to satisfy VANOC even. In other words, it is much like Mr. Trudeau saying that there was a real threat when it turned out there wasn't.

I haven't seen the evidence. I haven't heard of the contravention or the damages that were sustained by corporations in previous Olympics because somebody held up a Coke sign when Pepsi held the rights to the games, or whatever. I haven't heard of that, I haven't heard the evidence, and I haven't seen the evidence. Even if I did, I could not and would not, nor would I ever support legislation that allows someone to enter your property under the terms of a city sign bylaw.

We're not talking about busting down the doors of a grow operation. We're not talking about breaking into a house where there's a possibility that violence or criminal activities are taking place. We're talking about busting down the doors of citizens who might be contravening an agreement that'll lead to a little commercial loss somewhere. That's what we're talking about — someone who's got some obnoxious graffiti in their window, busting down their door without a hearing, without an opportunity for them to stand up and say: "I have my Charter rights. I am a Canadian."

There is nothing more touching, as most of the members in this chamber know, than attending a citizenship ceremony. When you see the faces of those new citizens who have come from countries around the world that don't begin to enjoy the rights we do in this country, that don't begin to have the sense of security and safety, that often don't even have the right to vote…. When you see the looks on their faces, it is for me the most touching aspect.

When I stand here in this House and am being asked to pass legislation and approve it — not for my national government, not even for my provincial government, arguably, but for a municipal government to exercise the right to knock down doors and remove graffiti and signs…. I'm asking the Attorney General now to step back for a moment and ask himself: is this right?

[1550]

Municipal government only exists because we in this chamber and our predecessors created it. It does not have an inherent right to exist under the constitution of this country. It does not exist except by virtue that we pass law.

Here in this chamber today I'm being asked to pass down to a government, a level of government, munici-
[ Page 1232 ]
pal government — three of them, in fact — the right to do things that no federal or provincial government would ever think of doing without due process, without the right to a hearing. I'm being asked to give that power to municipal government?

I cannot in good conscience do that. I cannot in good conscience allow that to happen. I cannot abdicate my responsibilities as a member of this assembly democratically elected to express the views of my constituents. I cannot stand back and say that it's okay just because it's the Olympics and that we promise never to abuse it.

The very abuse is not in whether it is employed. The abuse is in the passage itself of legislation enabling the abuse to occur. We recognize in criminal law extenuating circumstances — the example I used earlier of someone shoving you and you responding in an inherently aggressive manner. We recognize that passion plays a role, that the opportunity to think carefully about what you're doing doesn't exist in that situation. We recognize mitigating factors.

We are months from the Olympic Games. We are being asked in a cold and calculating manner in this chamber to support legislation that gives authority to municipal government to break into people's houses, all for the sake of commercial activity, graffiti and things related to that.

Now, if this is such a good idea, if this enjoys such public support, if this is so necessary, why don't I hear the chair of the IOC saying that this has to happen? Why don't I see the leading editorialists in this province, the leading columnists and commentators, standing up and saying: "This is a good thing. We need to do this"?

Ensuring that the Olympic Games go off without a hitch is paramount to the rights and precious freedoms we enjoy — as I said earlier, the deliverers of which, the protectors of which we will honour on Remembrance Day. We will honour them.

As a designated speaker, I can't sit idly by and let this legislation pass. There is no evidence it is required. If the War Measures Act was a mistake — and it was — if the packing up of Japanese-Canadian citizens in the Second World War was right, tell me.

It wasn't. We know it wasn't. The War Measures Act — the implementation under Prime Minister Trudeau was wrong. The transportation of citizens of British Columbia, dispossessed of their property and shoved in internment camps, was wrong. It was wrong, wrong, wrong, and this legislation is wrong.

It is no answer and no excuse whatsoever for any member of this chamber to stand up and say that it's necessary in order to comply with some Olympic agreement. It is no excuse or answer for anyone to suggest that somehow, by doing it just on a temporary basis, it's okay.

[1555]

It's wrong to hit somebody ten times, and it's wrong to hit them once. It's not the amount of time. It's not the frequency. It is the very act itself, and the act of enabling municipal government to have its bylaws enforced in this way without benefit of hearing is wrong. It was wrong to be proposed as such, it is wrong for this Legislature to consider it, and it will be wrong if this Legislature passes it.

There are other aspects of this legislation. I certainly appreciate the problems that universities find themselves in with respect to something now as pedestrian as enforcing the payment of fines. I understand why the government feels it has to pass retroactive legislation, notwithstanding that it flies in the face of a court decision that is at this moment, as I understand it, under appeal. I understand why the government might want to proceed retroactively on that, why it might wish to protect the finances of public institutions.

But those matters are going to be dealt with, I suspect, at great length during the course of committee stage of this bill, because as a miscellaneous statutes amendment act it may be a misc bill, but it doesn't get a pass from the opposition.

The opposition is going to consider carefully all of the provisions of this act. Much of it is quite pedestrian. It will be of no concern or great moment to British Columbians generally. It will, if you will, improve the management of government, particularly with respect to a number of the proposals around the Adult Guardianship and Planning Statutes Amendment Act, Judicial Compensation Act, Medicare Protection Act.

But around the issue of parking tickets and essentially defeating a class action — in other words, overriding the courts of the province and making it retroactive…. That's a matter of no small concern. It's certainly not equivalent to what I've spoken at length about today, the most repugnant sections of this bill, but it nevertheless isn't pleasant.

I've appreciated the opportunity to speak to this debate today, because I think that for once we have before us something where we really will be separating those who believe in the right to free speech from those who don't.

The government and the city of Vancouver and whoever else may try and colour it as something innocuous and suggest that it was all about the intent — that they wouldn't intend to do anything awful or nasty. But it is ultimately a dramatic step and a step that has ramifications if we truly believe in the principles of free speech, if we truly expect to honour appropriately on Remembrance Day those who fought and literally died for our freedoms, those who fought against fascism and tyranny.

I look forward to the Attorney General in this House explaining to the opposition and to this member in particular why the citizens of Vancouver, Whistler and Richmond — not even all British Columbians, just these specific communities, in addition — are going to be
[ Page 1233 ]
singled out so that if they exercise their rights, they in particular, in contrast to other citizens across the province, are going to be subject to penalties that no one else will face.

I look forward to hearing some explanation, because if I'm wrong, I am one of those people who will happily admit it. But I must say that I will be astonished if I'm forced to stand up in this House and say I was wrong, because everything surrounding this legislation tells me that I'm right — tells me that what the government intends to do with this legislation is to give authority to the city of Vancouver that is just wrong.

As a joke in caucus, sometimes I talk about my Magna Carta speech. The barons ran King John down at Runnymede, arguably for the same principles. You didn't get to get away with anything you wanted to just because you were the divine monarch. Here we're being asked to cede to municipal government the authority to do something that the Charter recognizes is wrong.

[1600]

You're not subject to unreasonable search and seizure. You're not. The Charter says you're not. The law says you're not. You're entitled to be free. That is the presumption of our very existence. We're entitled to our freedom, and more importantly, we're entitled to exercise those freedoms.

So when I'm asked to give the city of Vancouver the right to break down doors, what I'm being asked to do offends those very principles and those freedoms. That is something that this member will not support.

M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure to rise and take part in the debate on Bill 13, titled the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. It's an interesting choice of words, because as any member of this House who's been around successive parliaments for a while knows — both now and decades past — it's the miscellaneous statutes acts that are often the most interesting.

They tend to be a grab-bag of amendments to legislation that are innocuous or are deemed to be not worthy of standing alone as a piece of legislation — such as the bill that we dealt with prior to this one, the Ombudsman Amendment Act. Often they're seen as a bill that will just sort of slide through quickly and quietly.

Hon. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth, because in these types of legislation it really is a case of the devil being in the details. It deserves and will receive the scrutiny that other pieces of legislation also get.

The statute amends a whole series of acts, many of them innocuous. Many of them will be supported by this side of the House. But within this piece of legislation, there are some statutes where the amendment jumps out and requires, in fact demands, that they face particular scrutiny. There is something going on that demands and requires the attention of us as legislators in our role as opposition, but also the government and the ministers responsible in their roles as ministers of the Crown in justifying and explaining not just to the opposition but to the broader public as to why a particular change is being proposed or why a particular change is being implemented.

That's the case with a couple of sections in this bill, but in particular the sections in part 9, sections 31 and 32 and 33 and 34. They deal with issues of — as my colleague from Nanaimo so eloquently put it — free speech during the Olympics that we will all be participating in, I think joyfully and happily, in the spring to come.

The challenge is that what this is asking the Legislature to do is approve something that many people believe infringes on some of our most important fundamental beliefs and rights as Canadians, and that is the right of free speech. It's no exaggeration to say that in the public out there, these particular sections of this particular bill are already referred to as the jackboot clause — the jackboot clause because it is so broad in its definition.

It is so broad in its consequences that people are rightly concerned and have been vocal in their denunciation of this particular clause and this particular piece of legislation. One only has to see the response, for example, of the city of Vancouver which has now started to backtrack, saying: "Well, it's not what we intend to do. We need to define it more carefully." That is exactly what is wrong — the fact that this is so broad and is so vague.

[1605]

It's one thing to say we are going to give the city of Vancouver or Richmond or other municipalities certain powers, the ability that maybe other municipalities already have, but it's also important that we spell out specifically what is permissible and what is not permissible.

We're going to be celebrating the Olympics in just over a hundred days. I sat around the original cabinet table when the idea of hosting the Olympics was first floated, and I, along with my colleagues at that time, thought that this would be a terrific opportunity for British Columbia. It would be a terrific opportunity for the athletes of British Columbia, for the public of British Columbia, for the long-term development of British Columbia.

We approved it, knowing that it was going to take place in the context of a province that is in one of the freest and most open societies on the face of this planet — that we would be celebrating that aspect of British Columbia and that aspect of Canada and showcasing that to the world along with our natural scenery, along with the beauty of our province, along with the diversity of the people that live here, along with all the positive attributes that we as a community and a province and a nation have to share with the rest of the world.

One of those things, as a British Columbian, which I take great pride in is that it doesn't matter what side of the political spectrum you are on, but in this province we have a long cherished history of people saying what
[ Page 1234 ]
they think, even when it may not necessarily be popular in other parts of the country or other parts of the world.

Sometimes those things take place in the form of public displays of protest. I'm thinking, going back to the '70s, of the peace rallies that made Vancouver the peace capital of North America and indeed of the world. I'm thinking of rallies held at the Legislature or in other parts of the province over concerns around issues such as taxation.

The people of this province have never been shy about stating their opinion. By and large, it's always been peaceful. But we are now coming to a stage in the Olympic Games where we're being asked to pass a piece of legislation to deal with….

I understand the concept that there are those who paid a lot of money for the commercial rights in the Olympic Games. I understand that, but if that's what we're doing, then let's be far more specific than we are. Until people started speaking out in the media — in radio, in television, in the community….

What we are passing is legislation that would give municipalities and local governments the ability to go in and remove a sign off your property, and that is wrong. If I want to stick a sign up at my house or in my window during the Olympics, regardless of what I think, I should be able to do that. If this legislation is not intended to stop that, then it should say so.

We should not have to be listening to the city of Vancouver saying: "Oh, that's not what we mean. Maybe we'll come back with something that will word it differently." No. What was clear from the start was to give the broadest possible power and the broadest possible scope when that is, in fact, not what is required.

[1610]

Either at the bylaw level or at this level, it should be far more specific, far more restrained and far more explained than it has been. I look forward to committee stage to hear not only those explanations but those assurances that there will not be room for abuse with this legislation.

I have heard the city of Vancouver say that they want to make changes, that they're concerned about the pressure they're hearing. We hear similar comments, or comments from the government. They, too, must know that this is concerning an awful lot of people not on a partisan basis but on the basis of values and freedoms which we as British Columbians and Canadians all share.

I for one would like to see this particular clause not enacted or debated until the city of Vancouver, for example, were to come forward with a much tighter motion to their council, to be much more specific under what circumstances these powers would be used. I do not believe we should be giving carte blanche opportunity to any level of government that deals with some of our most fundamental rights that we take for granted.

I want to hear the government make the case in this legislation around the commercial interest. I want to hear them commit that there is that separation — from private individuals, from private property, from residential property owners — that under no circumstances, if someone has a sign on their private property, if someone has a sign in their window that states they are stating their opinion, are they going to run afoul of the law.

People want the Olympics to succeed. They want it to showcase the best that we have as a province to offer, that we as a country have to offer, and it's an opportunity for us to showcase how open, free and democratic a society we are. It is crucial that in this particular piece of legislation, this particular section, when it comes to debate in committee stage, the government has the answers the public have and that it is able to address their concerns around these particular sections.

It is important. It is important that when we are dealing with legislation like this, when there has clearly been considerable public concern, we are clear in its scope, in its intent, in its consequences; and we are also clear in what it is not intended to do; and we are also clear in how it will not be used; and we are also clear in how and who will not be impacted. The public of British Columbia deserves nothing less from us as legislators, and they deserve nothing less than that from the government that is proposing this piece of legislation.

I know there will be other members who want to speak. I look forward to hearing what they have to say, but I look with even greater interest to the government's response.

[1615]

This is not a case of opposition opposing just for the sake of opposing, but rather it is the opposition asking questions which people around this province are asking and wanting answers to. Quite frankly, even if it is just for a few weeks, I think it's a very big step to have a piece of legislation that can be interpreted so broadly and so widely and — judging from the way it was introduced and judging from the initial comments around it at the civic level and at the provincial level — not necessarily as well-thought-out as it should have been.

My colleague has said that he has not heard whether the IOC has demanded the piece of legislation. If so, I'd like to know that. If not, then where did the impetus for this come from? Is it part of the contract? Is the wording part of the contract?

I really do think the issue around the resolution that Vancouver city council say they will be introducing or wanting to try and reword should be on the table, so that this is debated in the context of that as well. Right now that is not the case.

We take these things very seriously. It's interesting to note that one of the things that came up early on in the Olympic bidding process — and luckily, we didn't run into the conflict — was around the IOC's demand that there not be an election during an Olympic Games or in
[ Page 1235 ]
the run-up to the Olympic Games. Well, we have a fixed election date, and luckily that was not the case.

But the fact of the matter that someone would even suggest to a democratic state, province or nation, "Oh, by the way, we're going to do the Olympic Games…."

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: My colleague says they asked the same of China. Well, I think he illustrates the point. I think he illustrates the point, and that is that we decide when elections are held.

We in this nation have always said and have always decided that free speech is one of the most fundamental foundations of our society. It may not be in other jurisdictions, but it sure is in British Columbia, and it sure is in the rest of Canada. We want to make sure it stays that way not just today but into the future as well.

That's why before we get and pass this legislation — the government passes this legislation — there needs to be a lot more attention paid to this clause in the form of answers, in the form of explanations and in the form of assurances.

With that, I will take my place and look forward to hearing the comments of my other colleagues.

V. Huntington: I'm pleased to speak to Bill 13 today, an omnibus bill that is generally innocent and deals with a number of housekeeping issues. But part 9 of this bill, the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act, is not innocent. I gratefully accept the Attorney General's offer of a briefing, as I am quite interested in hearing the official justification for what I believe to be an inappropriate piece of legislation.

When people elect their government, they are putting the faith in government that it will protect the public interest and that they will receive at least a modicum of respect and consideration from that government. When the people elect their government, they expect that government to protect their fundamental human rights, to protect our freedoms as citizens and to protect our rights to rely upon the Charter of Rights.

Governments expect us to honour and obey the law, which we do when the law is in turn honourable, just and fair and when it protects our citizenship. But I feel that no government has the right to put a foreign or domestic organization and its perspective or needs ahead of the rights of its own citizens.

[1620]

No government in this country has, in my opinion, the right to prevent me or anyone else from speaking freely except when we promote hatred.

This is a law that forces me to consider saying to the people: "Put the signs in your windows. Put the signs on your lawns. Stand on the road with flags. Make it impossible for the system to enforce a bad law."

We can have a good, exciting, successful Olympics without limiting our freedom to put a red line through an Olympic logo. That is all a sign is — a line on a piece of paper. It is not a riot. It is not a terrorist activity. It is not a danger to the public. It is a line on a piece of paper.

It is the little steps that are insidious to democracy, and I would most respectfully suggest to the Attorney General that it is precisely his office that is charged with ensuring that those little steps don't happen. Whether you support the Olympics or not, this is not a law any of us should support.

I urge our Attorney General to reconsider part 9 of the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2009.

S. Herbert: I rise today, of course, as the other members have been doing, to speak about Bill 13. I think the member for Delta South spoke very ably about the key concern that we on this side of the House have with this bill, which is freedom of speech — the ability to speak freely about issues of concern to yourself.

It feels funny to have to state what freedom of speech is in this House, but with the introduction of this part 9 of Bill 13, maybe this House needs a lesson or two in what free speech is.

Bill 13, and this section of this miscellaneous bill, was introduced in part because the IOC required it. The Olympics were coming, so we needed to do what we could to stop ambush marketing.

I could understand that. People spend their money to get their coverage in international markets. They want some sense that there won't be other people who just happen to step behind the camera into somebody's apartment, for example, and put up a different corporate logo.

So the IOC went to the city of Vancouver and, I understand, Richmond and Whistler as well. They wanted some changes to sign bylaws. They said: "We need you to do this."

The city of Vancouver quickly followed suit. They brought in changes this summer which were about the sign bylaw at the city. Those changes, when you read them…. You would have thought they would focus on commercial speech, on corporate advertising.

I understand. I've read them. They talk about advertising, but they do not talk about the specifics in terms of what could be determined to be advertising and what could not. So if I'm walking on a pedestrian street — pedestrian zoned for the Olympics…. Let's think about a nice corner of my constituency. You're walking along Robson Street.

Interjection.

S. Herbert: They're all nice corners, my colleague from Powell River says, and I agree. It's a beautiful constituency.
[ Page 1236 ]

You walk along Robson Street. Let's say you get to Robson and Bute. You're in there, and oh well, you wanted to talk about the Olympics. You're at the Olympics, and you think there needs to be some discussion about the impact on your neighbourhood. Or maybe you want to talk about some other public event of the day that is going on, and you're talking to your neighbours. You're talking to the people who walk up that street as they do. It's a very popular pedestrian street.

Under the way the city has worded their bylaw right now, somebody could step in and say, "You cannot distribute that," or "You cannot hold that sign. You're going to be arrested," or "You're going to face a fine."

Now, when my constituents come to speak to me about this bill, and they have, they say: "What? How could you get away with this? How could you say that a government would step in and tell me that I couldn't distribute information about a community event, an ad for a community event, on this street that I walk up and do this on occasion? How could I be banned from having a sign in my window which overlooks that area?"

There are many tall apartments that overlook that area, and I understand the city's bylaw applies also to what's above. Well, they could get maybe a little note under the door if they happen to be at home, which tells them: "Oh, you're not allowed to have that sign." If they don't follow, the door can be drilled in, they can come in and tear down that sign and charge them a fine or put them in jail.

[1625]

What kind of sign could that be? It could be, as the member for Delta South said so ably, a sign that just had one red stripe through the Olympic rings, if they so chose.

My constituents, in a vote — because the city of Vancouver actually had a vote on the Olympics — voted 60 percent in favour of the Olympics and 40 percent opposed. Both views should be allowed to stand. Both views should have the ability to express themselves before the games, during the games and after the games.

We here as legislators have a duty to be able to watch legislation that our municipal councils are bringing in, to support them, to see what we can do to work with them. This government has brought in this bill which enables bad legislation. It enables legislation, a motion of the city of Vancouver, which is so open-ended. But it's not so open-ended that they didn't realize that it could be interpreted to be also about celebratory signage.

They brought in a bylaw change which would say celebratory signage is okay. So it's okay for you to put up a pro-Olympic sign in your window, and that will be okay as long as you worked that out. But if you were to put up a sign which said that you were upset at ICBC or that you were upset at B.C. Hydro or that you had a problem with the B.C. Liberals or a problem with…. I don't know. Maybe your water was cloudy and you were upset about that. Maybe that wouldn't go over so well with sponsors.

Maybe there's a split-second decision by law enforcement because of a slight complaint from somebody, or maybe it was just that somebody saw it up in the window and went: "Oh well, that doesn't quite conform with our view of what the bylaw entails. Maybe that's advertising, because they're advertising their discontent, so we're going to step in and tear it down." Well, that's tearing down free speech.

My constituents are very well aware of the need to defend free speech. I think of the Little Sister's bookshop, which has fought for many, many years — for far too long, up to the Supreme Court — for their ability to have the right to sell the literature that they want to, to my community.

And my community has backed them. They've stood behind them. They've donated. They've supported as they could Little Sister's fight, because if they're not allowed to distribute literature to the public — free speech — if they're not allowed to have their right of free speech, neither am I, neither are you, and neither are the members of this House. So they stood with them, and that's why they're upset about this bill — because it continues this right of restricting free speech.

Other constituents of mine…. The B.C. Civil Liberties Association is also speaking out very strongly against this bill because of its limit to our right to speak.

Now, members in this House will be familiar that I often speak about the need to bring more people into government, to reach out to the people we represent, to listen to them, to hear from them, to hear their speech so that we can craft our actions in such a way that it supports their needs and supports having a great province.

We have a great province. We've got a beautiful province — great diversity, great people, great community organizations — but to have that great diversity of our people also means that we have to support the diversity of viewpoints. And how do you do that? You support freedom of speech. You support the freedom of speech so that people can say one thing, so somebody can respond, and so that they can come to some consensus if that's possible.

I've spoken to city council in Vancouver, spoken to Councillor Meggs, spoken to the mayor and spoken to a number of others about my concerns with this bill. They say to me, "Don't worry. This is not what we're trying to do," and I believe them. They're not fans of criminalizing free speech. That's not what they want to do. That's not what they're attempting to do, they assure me. But the way the wording of the law is, that's what it does.

I see, through some comments in the media, that they may be looking at making revisions. I really hope they do. They must. They must if they are to retain trust with the people of B.C. You see, when you elect a government, you're expecting them to stand for you, stand
[ Page 1237 ]
with you, make tough decisions, but you're certainly not expecting that government to step in and limit your ability to inform them on how they should make those decisions.

No. You in fact — I would expect — would expect your government representative to do more, to listen to you, because we know that more people putting their minds to a problem come up with a better answer.

[1630]

So I'm calling on the city of Vancouver to look at amending its bylaws. I know that Coun. Ellen Woodsworth spoke up in city hall to try and make some amendments.

Hopefully, after some sober second thought, the rest of council will find a way to bring an amendment so that it's very clear what the intent of the bylaw is — instead of being able to be used on a whim by people who might not understand what their intent is because they've just got the law and don't see the intent behind it, don't see the discussion in council or in this House — so that they will be able to act with good conscience when they go in to deal with a situation of ambush marketing, so that they're not left wasting their time dealing with people who have opposing points of view.

We should allow people and we should embrace people…. I know that our law enforcement officers in the province that I've talked to tell me that they enjoy and want to see that exchange of ideas, because if it's happening in public and in the open, we're not seeing it in fights. We're not seeing it in here.

Now, I understand this House. People have often talked about this place, as we have these arguments back and forth. There's the question period. It's the discussion about that it's more important that the blood be spilled on the floor of this chamber in terms of, you know…

An Hon. Member: Verbal blood.

S. Herbert: …verbal blood than it be spilt out on the alleys, the streets, the homes, the businesses of our province. It's more important that we have this debate here.

If we were ever to suggest that people in this House couldn't say certain statements about the Olympics, for example, or if they weren't allowed to say certain statements about government policy of the day — they could only make celebratory statements — we'd have a lot of outrage.

I don't think any one of us would stand for that. I'm sure that would be the same — I would hope, anyways — for members of that side, because they understand that in this House we need to be able to say our piece to do the job for our constituents. But that is the same for what we need to be doing and be able to do out in the streets and in the parks and in the communities of B.C. That's what makes this province great. It's the freedom to speak our minds, the freedom to listen and the freedom to move forward.

My community has been a leader in the debate of free speech. It's been a leader provincially, certainly, has been a leader nationally. We think about people standing up for their right to love, for their right to be together with their partners, for their right to read what literature they want to read. So I stand with my constituents on the right to speak their minds, their right to share in the debate, their right for dialogue.

Just because you live at Robson and Bute doesn't mean the government should have the right to rip down signs from your windows which might go against their best interests, against the interests of that government of the day. Just because you happen to live near the Olympic village, near the convention centre or near Coal Harbour Community Centre does not mean that you lose your right to speak out.

I will never stand for that. This side of the House will never stand for that, and I hope that government on that side of the House will not stand for it and will call for changes to the bylaws so that the people of B.C. have the right to speak their minds, whether it's about the Olympics or any other matter.

N. Simons: I rise to join the debate on Bill 13 and to express my concern about this legislation — in particular, part 9. The arguments have been eloquently made by my colleagues, and I believe that they need to be made clearer.

This legislation was drafted by a government that didn't put adequate thought into protecting the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens. What bigger criticism could one have of a piece of legislation besides that it didn't take into account the freedoms of its citizens? To me, that exemplifies very much the attitude that's reflected in this House by this government, and I find it troubling on so many levels.

It's terrible legislation, as it stands, with respect to protecting the rights of people to have free expression. It would be good to be used, probably, as an example of repressive legislation — broad and indistinct, defended by: "It won't be applied that way. Oh, it won't apply in these circumstances." That needs to be set out in the legislation. Otherwise, what you have is a blunderbuss when you need something more specific, like a dart.

[1635]

In this particular case, we know that the broad, blunderbuss approach is not a good approach when it comes to the drafting of legislation. So I'm a little bit horrified, in fact, that we're discussing this legislation in its current form. I would presume that the government is contemplating — I would hope that the government is contemplating — changes that will protect the public interest in this legislation.

Obviously if they're not, it's not just the opposition that will be crying foul and has cried foul. It's a broad spectrum from our communities who, despite or not-
[ Page 1238 ]
withstanding their political views, believe that stifling opposition or stifling alternative perspectives goes contrary to our fundamental principles of democracy.

But we're here in British Columbia in the Legislature, in a province of a free country where we're actually talking about whether we should curtail the rights of individuals almost on a whim during a couple-month period of time. To me, it just reflects the lack of depth when it comes to this government's concern for the values that underlie legislation that's passed in this House.

I've spoken against other pieces of legislation that I believe were infringements of people's privacy or that were ill-suited to meet the concerns they were attempting to address. In this particular case, we don't know where the motivation is coming from. It's clearly a faulty piece of legislation because of how it opens up people for not being criminalized necessarily, but certainly acted against as if they were criminals when, in fact, what they're doing is expressing an opinion.

I'm also concerned about the lack of precision, not just in terms of what the content of the signs is but also the infringement on people's privacy and the right to free expression in their home. How far will government allow law enforcement in this particular case or bylaw enforcement to go? If someone has painted something on their house, will they, at the cost of the homeowner, put up a fence to block the view of it?

The fact that these questions wouldn't be obviously answered in legislation is, I think, a signal of its weakness in terms of the type of legislation that it is. I have heard from many people throughout my constituency, far-flung from these three communities identified as the no-talk zones. In my communities people are saying that the infringement of others' civil rights is infringement on ours, and we wouldn't want to see this happen.

I haven't even talked about the slippery slope that legislation like this can lead to. If we pass it now for this event, will we be passing other laws to choreograph individuals into particular little arenas where they'll be able to scream as loudly as they want, but while walking in other paths in our communities, they'll be unable to express themselves? We're talking about expressing oneself in one's own home.

When government takes that large, heavily booted step into the front yard of citizens of Richmond or Whistler or Vancouver, I think we're opening ourselves up to further infringements on our rights.

I'm appalled that this legislation is before us today in this form. I'm appalled that nobody on the government side of the House recognized this incredible breach of individual freedom and right to free speech and right to privacy and protection of people's private homes. I find it troubling.

The problem has already occurred. The evidence of bad governance is already before us. Here we are in this stage of debate. It should not have come to this. We should not be debating Bill 9. Massive changes need to be made in order for anybody in their right mind to support this legislation.

[1640]

Madam Speaker, I think it's clear that the infringements on personal freedoms go contrary to the public interest and contrary to the mood of the public of British Columbia. I urge this government strongly not just to rehabilitate their image, such as it is in this respect, but also to protect the public from unnecessary infringements on their rights.

Hon. M. de Jong: As always, I have listened carefully to the commentary that has come before the House. I appreciate the participation of members and their contribution to the debate. It was not my intention to, at this stage in the discussion, go on at length. It's still not my intention to go on at length.

I understand that the place for a detailed analysis of the provisions that members have focused upon and spoken to is, in this case, more proper at the committee stage, but I do want to take a couple of moments to provide some thoughts in response to some of the things that I heard and to acknowledge that in my own way, I was troubled by what I heard — not troubled by the exercise by members of the official opposition and other members of the opposition to perform a vitally important role, a vitally important function, which is to test, to probe, to analyze and to critique legislation. That in no way troubles me. That is the healthiest part of what takes place in this chamber.

I fear that as much as members wanted to convey a desire — or an appearance of open-mindedness — to investigate further how these provisions are designed to operate, in fact, they have already come to a conclusion. I fear, and I say this regrettably, that in part, that is because the arguments, or some of the arguments, that we have heard make for far better political commentary than actually focusing in on what the statutes do or say, purport to say or do.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The principles at stake here, and perhaps there is agreement on this point, are so important that they deserve that level of analysis — measured, careful analysis — to step away from the rhetoric. At times the critic for the Attorney General's ministry, the hon. member for Nanaimo, seemed to bend over backwards to make the point: "I'm not suggesting that."

Yet when he reads his remarks, when others read his remarks, they will be hard pressed not to conclude that he was equating that those who have either asked for these tools or who are, as I am, responsible for their presence in this House are somehow drawn to the actions of South American dictators, fascists.
[ Page 1239 ]

I mean, those are words that the member chose to employ.

Interjection.

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, I'm sorry that the member feels compelled to interrupt. I actually listened very carefully, Mr. Speaker.

[1645]

I heard the member talk, I think genuinely, about the importance of these principles as we come upon Remembrance Day. I even today have difficulty thinking about that day, because of what it means for my family.

Mr. Speaker: Prefer to have a short recess, Attorney?

Hon. M. de Jong: No, that's fine. Thank you, hon. Speaker.

I think of the story of my mom. On May 5, when the other people were out on the streets cheering the Canadian soldiers liberating Holland, she and her family couldn't be out there. They were very nearly dead.

That doesn't give me a licence on these principles. I actually believe that everyone in this chamber is committed to something as fundamental as freedom of speech, freedom of expression. At times we are asked to find a balance to address some of the imperatives that appear in the formulation of public policy. We do our best to do so, and the mayor and the city of Vancouver do their best to address those and find that balance.

But it does a disservice to the discussion to suggest, as one member did, that this equates with criminalizing free speech. That is language that, if it is genuinely meant, I disagree with profoundly, and if it is designed for no other purpose than to elicit a reaction, I say is irresponsible.

Someone in the discussion in this chamber made the point, I think trying to be generous, about how everyone in British Columbia wants the Olympic Games to be a success. Actually, that's not true. That's not true. You know what else? That's okay. I want the Olympics to be a success. I know many people who do. In fact, the majority, the vast majority, of people I know want the Olympics to be a success.

But not everyone does, and they have the right to say that. They have the ability to express that. They have it today, and they will have it as long as I can live or breathe. They will continue to have that right.

You know, it's fine to stand up in this chamber, and it's easy to speak in general terms of an assault on fundamental democracy that equates with — I heard someone talk about — the imposition of the War Measures Act and ignore the fact that the powers that municipalities have to regulate the posting of signs exist today and have existed for years.

Now, that's not as sexy as standing up and talking about this egregious assault on fundamental rights. I think it is entirely appropriate, and I hope it happens, that during the course of the committee stage debate, members of the opposition — the official opposition and others — put those questions to the government. How will this work? How will the new section 33 operate, and what are the safeguards to ensure that it will not be abused? What are those safeguards? That is a legitimate, entirely appropriate operation of this assembly.

[1650]

But others rise regularly and speak their minds. Every now and again I try to do the same thing. It is not, I would suggest, fair, accurate or appropriate to impugn, as I thought some members did, either purposely or inadvertently, the motives of those who are seeking to find an appropriate balance between the fundamental rights that we enjoy as Canadians and the management of a great event — a great event that carries with it some unbelievable responsibilities but incredible opportunities.

I must tell the opposition critic, the hon. member for Nanaimo, that as I listened to his words, I wondered what those duly elected councillors in Vancouver, in Richmond, in Whistler must think when they hear or read the description. Again, it is not, in my view, inappropriate to speak about the need to craft legislative and statutory tools carefully. But I'm not sure they're going to be as understanding when they hear the manner in which their level of government and their capacity to abuse the use of tools has been described in this chamber in the last hour or hour and a half.

The principles are important. The provisions that we will discuss in detail are not designed to create new powers. Unless someone tells me differently, municipalities have been regulating the posting of signage for years, if not decades.

There's an obligation that flows both ways. Just as the obligation exists for government to answer the questions that are presented to it in the committee stage of a debate, like the one I suspect we're going to have, I think there is an obligation on the part of the opposition, in presenting the kind of scenario that I heard described over the past hour and a half or two hours, to lay out in more detail — and I hope they'll do this — why they believe the provisions that are included in this bill would allow for the kind of abuse that they have described.

Maybe they'll do that. But it's harder, because you actually have to go to what is printed on the page. You have to actually rely on what is in the statute and not what is often the convenient rhetoric that all of us are guilty from time to time of employing in this chamber.

I've taken more time than I wanted to or had planned on. There are other provisions in this bill, and I think the only member who spoke to those was the critic for the Attorney General's ministry, in pointing to some of the university-related provisions. I'm sure we'll have a discussion around that as well.
[ Page 1240 ]

This country belongs to all of us, and the principles that I heard enunciated and defended here are ones that I like to think we all share. The most important test for that is not that we craft laws that help facilitate those things that we support or happen to believe in at any point in time but that we craft laws that allow for and facilitate the expression and the opinions of those that disagree with us.

[1655]

That is the measure against which these principles must be applied. I believe the legislation that is here meets that standard. It wouldn't be here if the government, after careful consideration, didn't believe it met that standard.

Let us have that discussion. Let us prod; let us poke; let us critique it; let us ask the questions; let us determine what the scenarios are in which it would be applied. But let's do it with an open mind. Let's do it from an informed basis. Let the members who have spoken have the briefing, if they wish, to explore in detail what the legal consequences are, how they operate vis-à-vis the local bylaws that are actually created by citizens of this province — duly elected citizens, Mr. Speaker.

If we can do that, then we will see this chamber operate in the way that it can. But if we don't, I fear we will see this chamber operate in a far less appealing and perhaps more sinister way.

Mr. Speaker, my task now is to move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 13, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2009, 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 committee stage of Bill 9, the Wood First Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BIll 9 — WOOD FIRST ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 9; C. Trevena in the chair.

The committee met at 4:58 p.m.

On section 1.

N. Macdonald: The first provision of this very short bill is on definitions. The first thing I'd like to do is to put forward an amendment to the Committee of the Whole. The amendment would read as follows:

[Section 1:

(a) by adding the following definition:

"wood" means wood products that have been derived from timber grown and manufactured in British Columbia.]

I have copies of that, if we could have those taken and distributed.

On the amendment.

[1700]

N. Macdonald: The amendment that has been put forward here is basically to a bill that is incredibly short. The wood act in total is two pages, with the biggest of the five sections being the definitions. There are only three definitions, so people get an idea of just how sparse this initiative from the B.C. Liberals is, related to any action on forestry.

What we've said in second reading, and what is clear as we go through this act, is that it is a bill that is largely a do-nothing bill. At the very best, we could say that this is perhaps an expression of sentiment, and if you need a law to put forward that idea, that sentiment, then perhaps that's something you could see as acceptable. Or more likely, and I think certainly what my colleagues and I believe, it's a fairly cynical attempt to make it look like the government is doing something about the collapse of our most important industry.

I would remind members that the record for the B.C. Liberals is one that is, in an unprecedented way, a record of poor management that has largely seen the collapse of what has traditionally been the strongest industry, the backbone to the British Columbia economy: 25,000 good, family-supporting jobs lost; 40 to 50 mills closed. There is no value-added strategy of any size. There's no sign at all that there's a strategy.

There is no support for workers that have been displaced. There is no support for communities that have lost their main source of employment. There is no idea about how to utilize the resource properly. One would have expected that if you were going to bring an act forward, what you may have considered is some way to make sure that the resource is utilized in a responsible way.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

But what B.C. Liberal policy has consistently done is to make sure that the protections for B.C. wood and for a proper use of the resource have been removed, one regulation after another, one piece of legislation after another. With utilization, if we were going to do something, we would, you would think, want to work on that first. You would want to make sure that the resource we have is used. The example from 2003, where this government introduced changes to legislation that allowed large volumes of good wood to stay in the forest….

If we are going to move with the Wood First Act, then it has to be something that benefits British Columbians, and make sure that it benefits, in some way, the industry that we've come to depend on.

The purpose of this amendment, then….
[ Page 1241 ]

Deputy Speaker: I recognize the minister on a point of order.

Hon. P. Bell: The member has moved an amendment. I understand that's well within his rights. But I would ask that you direct him to speak to the amendment. He's talking about policies from six, seven, eight years ago in his comments right now.

Deputy Speaker: The member continues.

N. Macdonald: So the purpose of the amendment is going to be based on the kindest interpretation of this bill. What I have said about the eight years of legislation ahead that has provided absolutely nothing, that you would expect at some point there would be legislation in front of us that would be effective in some way….

This comes out of a round table? This is presumably what a million dollars gets for you — a piece of legislation like this, and at the very least, we should be pushing towards the idea that we use B.C. wood. The amendment essentially says that rather than simply wood, if you're going to be promoting wood, you promote B.C. wood. The amendment reads….

[1705]

It adds the definition of "wood," and it says that wherever "wood" is used in this tiny little piece of legislation, that it not just be wood from any jurisdiction but that it be British Columbia wood, that it be wood that is derived from timber grown in British Columbia. Increasingly, what we have to also indicate is that it's wood that is manufactured in British Columbia. What we've seen, not that long ago, is that what you would think is an obvious thing to add to a piece of legislation is one where it's an open question as to whether the government is actually interested in supporting that sentiment.

The kindest interpretation…. The kindest we can be about this fluff of an act is that it's an expression of sentiment. Surely, if we're going to express a sentiment about using wood, we would be expressing the sentiment that it should be B.C. wood. There's nothing at all automatic about that.

We remember during the election down in Delta when they actually looked at how the Ministry of Transportation is spending money putting up wood signs at a time when our markets and manufacturing have collapsed. The government can't even be bothered to buy signs, wood, that is from British Columbia. It's instead from the United States.

What we look for with this amendment is to try to put in something that indicates that it is important to us. Like I say, the politest, the kindest you can be to this bill is that it is somehow an expression of sentiment. Surely that expression of sentiment should be that we would use British Columbia wood.

Now, that's hardly a revolutionary idea. You wouldn't think that it would take a law to express that sentiment, but that is what we're left with in terms of B.C. Liberal forestry policies.

Pieces of fluff like this…. At the very least, if you're going to put forward a piece of fluff like this, in the biggest section, which is in definitions, you could include a definition that had wood defined as B.C. wood.

M. Farnworth: I rise to speak in support of the amendment.

My riding of Port Coquitlam no longer has the majestic forests it did at the turn of the century that fuelled the mills at Fraser Mills and the mills of Port Moody — Flavelle Cedar that employed hundreds, if not thousands, of workers. Now it's mostly subdivisions.

But the mountains and the valleys around the Tri-City area still support a logging industry, and I can tell you that those workers and, indeed, the public, support the use of wood. But they want to know that it's B.C. wood that's being used. They want to know when they see a building that it is B.C. cedar. They want to know that it's a B.C. Douglas fir for the joists and the framing in buildings.

I saw, the other day, the Premier speak about the need to use wood, and he even mentioned B.C. species like hemlock. He said, at that time, that a lot of people think there aren't many uses for hemlock. I thought for a moment. I said: "Well yeah, you can drink hemlock."

But more importantly, hemlock can be used in a variety of applications in B.C. construction. That's what we want to see. It's not just the woods that most people are familiar with like the Douglas fir, the cedar or the hemlock, but other species of wood like pine and spruce.

Even some of our hardwoods, such as alder, have applications and uses. It can be used in manufacturing. Just in the same way that when it comes to agriculture, people love the Buy B.C. program — they buy B.C. apples; they buy B.C. peaches; they buy B.C. grapes; they drink B.C. wine, because they're proud of what we produce in our province — likewise, they want to see B.C. wood used in construction, especially by government-funded projects.

[1710]

All we're saying is let's show our pride in British Columbia in the same way that we promote agricultural products, in the same way that we promote our educational system in other jurisdictions — about all the things that we have going for it. Let's do the same thing when it comes to what is arguably one of the greatest resources that our province has. It was, and has been, one of the pillars upon which this province was built, and that is B.C. wood.

Let's make sure we specify in that piece of legislation that when we say we want to use wood in this province, it's British Columbia wood. It's not wood from some jurisdiction like New York City or somewhere else, but it's British Columbia–grown and British Columbia–marketed wood.
[ Page 1242 ]

H. Bains: I, too, rise in favour of this amendment, because without this amendment, this bill means nothing to me. I looked at it…. The minister and this government will try to say to whoever is willing to listen to them that somehow they're supporting our wood industry in British Columbia. But when you look at this bill, there's nothing in it to support B.C. wood or B.C. industry.

I know the minister doesn't want to talk about the previous six, seven years of devastation that this government has caused in the forest industry. Starting in 2003, we have had mill after mill after sawmill shut down. If we had this provision that we're talking about in this amendment, there would have been some support to those workers who lost their jobs — 25,000 of them lost their jobs since 2003.

Why 2003? Why is it a coincidence that since 2003 we've lost most of those mills, and most of those workers have lost their jobs? It's because that's the year they brought in this Forestry Revitalization Act. It's as a direct result of that act that we have seen so many mills shut down and so many workers have lost their jobs. Community after community who were once proud to be dependent on forestry are no longer there.

If we don't put B.C. wood in this act, like I said before, then this is all about, I think, political expediency rather than actually dealing with the issue at hand, the issue of revitalizing our industry, putting those people back to work by requiring that B.C. wood must be used — especially when the government is paying the freight.

I tell you, I was at Bear Creek Park just the other day, and they're expanding this annex where most of the seniors sit. It's a wonderful facility. They're expanding it. Somebody drew my attention to the plywood that is being used. It's made in the U.S.A. — not B.C. plywood. It doesn't make sense when public dollars are being spent to build a public facility that you don't see B.C. wood there.

This bill doesn't do anything to deal with that. We've seen along the highways, when the highways are expanded, new signs are put on there. It was brought to this government's attention during the election, as well, that some of those signposts…. The wood came from outside of B.C. It actually came from across the line. So this is what this government's all about: creating jobs across the line with our B.C. forests.

What this amendment does is bring back that proud history that B.C. once had, the proud forestry history that we once enjoyed in this province. The people used to take pride in saying, "I'm using B.C. wood in my home," whether it was renovations or building a new home. People used to take pride when they saw B.C. wood being used in school buildings, in many of the other public infrastructures being put together using public dollars.

[1715]

I don't know why government would not agree with this amendment. The way they're going…. If they're really serious about really promoting B.C. wood, if they really are serious about revitalizing our industry by this bill, then they've got to agree with this amendment; otherwise, like I said, it's all political expediency. We've seen more of that from that side of the House than actually doing something to deal with the issues that we have on hand. So I'm really disappointed that in this bill, B.C. wood is not mentioned.

Now, I think, as a second sober thought, our critic has put together a really sensible amendment. If the minister and this government are, as they say they are, serious about revitalizing our forest industry by saying "wood first," then they have got to say it is B.C. wood. How could they vote against that? How could they not agree with that amendment? That's what puts pride back where it belongs, that we as British Columbians do actually want to promote our product, which is B.C. wood, in the forest industry.

I spent too many years in the forest industry to realize how important that is. All of my working life was spent in the forest industry before I got elected to this House, so I have an intimate relationship with that industry. Every time I touch wood, it actually puts some shivers through my spine that this is the industry that actually gave me what I have today. This is the industry that actually paid for my children's education. This is the industry that gave me the lifestyle that I enjoy.

This is why I'm standing up in support of this amendment. I'm really hoping and really actually hopeful that the members on that side will actually take this seriously and agree with this amendment, because, you know, there are times that we can put aside our political partisanship and agree on something that actually makes sense for all of British Columbians.

The forest industry being the engine that drove our economy ever since you can remember or ever since the existence of British Columbia itself…. This is one thing that we could agree on — that we are actually joining forces across this House and agreeing that B.C. wood should be promoted over foreign product when we are using tax dollars to build public infrastructure.

Can you imagine that you look at these desks or all of this beautiful wood that we have here and somebody turned around and said it somehow came from Oregon or Washington? What kind of feeling will that have? What kind of feeling would you have to see that the wood we have in these halls or that we use in this building is not British Columbia wood, that we have wood and we couldn't use it here just because it was not the convenient thing to do?

I think this amendment just makes sense. I think it is timely. Now is the time that the minister can get serious and turn this industry around, because too many people have lost so many jobs out there. So many people are in EI lineups. So many people out there are actually running out of their EI benefits. This is the time that actually
[ Page 1243 ]
you can take a really good goodwill gesture and say that we are actually going to stand behind our product, the British Columbia product.

Hon. P. Bell: I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the member's amendment.

You know, I am thinking a bit about what's going on across the United States right now, where in different assemblies throughout the United States — in the Senate, in the Congress — they're debating buy-American policies.

[1720]

I can tell you that this government opposes buy-American policies, the federal government opposes buy-American policies, and most political parties oppose buy-American policies strictly on the basis of the removal of our opportunity to trade into that marketplace.

We ship into the United States on an annual basis somewhere between 60 percent and 70 percent of our lumber. We rely on that marketplace to receive our goods. We're trying to make some changes there. We're trying to move into the Chinese marketplace.

This bill is intended to try and get us to focus more on building buildings in British Columbia and across Canada. We want to be leaders in terms of building commercial institutional buildings out of wood, and we think that's a unique opportunity.

In the meantime it's very awkward for British Columbia to have a policy that specifies only British Columbia forest products being used in government buildings and then, on the other hand, oppose the American policies of buy-American strategies.

In British Columbia we represent well over 50 percent of the Canadian forest products industry, and yet we only represent 13 percent of the population of Canada. So if one were to continue down the vein of this thinking, then you would very quickly realize that Alberta could have a wood-first policy that would only allow Alberta forest products. Saskatchewan would have a wood-first policy that would only allow Saskatchewan forest products. Ontario would have a wood-first policy that would only allow Ontario forest products and so on.

What we would do by endorsing that proposal is constrain the largest single segment of the forest products industry here in British Columbia to just 13 percent of the marketplace across Canada. Clearly, that's not in the best interests of B.C.'s forest industry, of the people that work in B.C.'s forest industry.

If you move outside simply the Canadian model and look across North America, B.C. represents about 1.4 percent of the North American population, yet we represent about 20 percent of the North American forest industry. So again, if we were to propose a B.C.-only wood-first policy, then it would be very difficult to argue with Washington State when they propose a Washington State–only forest products industry, or California or anywhere else.

So by having a very narrow focus and not allowing us to say to our international trading partners: "We welcome competition. We believe in competition. We believe in the forest industry and forest products, and whether it's our lumber or your lumber, we're going to build with lumber in British Columbia…." We're going to build with wood products in British Columbia because that's in the best interests of all of our forest products industries across North America, to grow the business and grow the opportunity.

So this amendment is not one that government will be supporting. We very much do believe in the importance of being able to pull partners in on this — jurisdictions like Alberta and Saskatchewan, who've already expressed interest in adopting this piece of legislation and this policy, and the federal government, who've expressed interest in also adopting this sort of legislation. We hope to move into the United States, into Washington and Oregon and other partners, and have them adopt this policy as well.

Although I'm sure that the amendment was put forward with the best of intentions from the member opposite, clearly, from our perspective, we need to ensure that we have the largest possible market available to the B.C. forest products industry.

If we don't do that, we lose nine out of ten mills that are operating today. If we were to only produce the amount of lumber that we ourselves would consume, we would lose all of our pulp mills, except for perhaps one, in British Columbia.

We are a small exporting jurisdiction. We rely on the world to receive our forest products. For us to specify by legislation only B.C. forest products in B.C. buildings would clearly be folly and would not allow us to have full advantage and opportunity of the global forest industry — and, in fact, would be hypocritical.

Government will be opposing this motion.

N. Macdonald: Just to close debate on the proposed amendment then, it is clear that the legislation that is put forward…. Let's be clear on this. This is primarily an expression of sentiment. All of the things that the minister was talking about, these big issues around the market — that's not what this legislation is about.

[1725]

I guess the point is that if this is the plan to save the forest industry, then…. In my earlier remarks I just talked about how it's just one more piece in a series of failures, and if all it is, is a sentimental expression about wood, then let's at least make the statement that it's B.C. wood that we value, B.C. wood that we are proud of and that we want an industry that once again not only harvests wood here in British Columbia but also produces products that are the best in the world.

So if this is an expression of sentiment, then let's say proudly and loudly that we want B.C. wood used. With that, I move the amendment. I look forward to the vote.

[1730]
[ Page 1244 ]

The Chair: The question is the amendment to section 1 moved by the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 29

NAYS — 43

The Chair: Recognizing the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke. We'll wait a moment until members remove themselves to their other duties.

[1735]

N. Macdonald: Section 1 deals with the three definitions. One is provincially funded buildings. It refers to a building or an addition to a building that increases the size of the building.

Just in terms of that definition, how does it relate to the seismic upgrades of schools? Is the definition of a provincially funded building going to include the seismic upgrades to schools and other public buildings?

Hon. P. Bell: That's correct. It does include the seismic upgrade program.

N. Macdonald: Okay. The other thing is the provincial funding of the building. Is there any sense of how large the contribution of provincial funding needs to be? If the federal government is involved, is that still considered a provincially funded building? Is it 5 percent? Is there any threshold, or is the idea here with this definition that any contribution from the provincial government other than the unconditional grant to local government would mean that this definition would stand?

Hon. P. Bell: Largely, it means if there is an investment by the provincial government in that particular building. But as the member opposite points out, there may be circumstances in which the federal government is contributing a large sum of money and the provincial government something less. That's why there is a best-practices framework within this bill that allows us to establish in those circumstances if there is another priority from another jurisdiction.

This, largely, is based on our desire to see 100 percent of these buildings, whenever there is provincial money involved, using wood wherever and whenever possible.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

N. Macdonald: The second section — which is, again, very, very short — talks about the purpose of the bill. Here I just want to explore the idea of requiring. It doesn't really seem to fit with anything else that's in the bill. In what way is wood — and I would have preferred if it was B.C. wood — required?

Hon. P. Bell: The requirement links back to the funding. The funding would only be provided contingent on the building fully utilizing wood at every opportunity that is seen fit as a result of the best practices that would be established by the Minister of Forests. It would be reviewed by the funding organization, the capital division of government, to ensure that all of those measures were accomplished.

N. Macdonald: I mean, requiring seems to be something that's pretty clear and you must do it. Yet what the minister laid out were all sorts of provisions where it wouldn't be required. So what is the definition of requirement? Because if there are all sorts of reasons or conditions where there's actually no requirement, then you're really not requiring. So what is the definition, for this purpose, of required?

Hon. P. Bell: One of the reasons why I suspect the member opposite is feeling some sense of frustration is because of the notion of best practices.
[ Page 1245 ]
 

We looked at all of the opportunities to determine how we could define the use of wood in each of these buildings, and we very quickly realized that the construction industry is a rapidly evolving industry in construction techniques and the types of products that are produced out of B.C.'s forests are changing very, very quickly.

[1740]

So we needed to have a flexible system that allowed us to change the best practices on the construction of these buildings in a timely way, and therefore, establish that model for implementation.

The linkage here is if you want to build a building, you'll demonstrate that you're going to utilize wood in each and every opportunity within that building. That will then be approved for the final capital funding. The funding will be provided subject to the confirmation that wood is being utilized in every way possible in that building, and then the building will go ahead with its final approval at that point in time.

The reason why best practices were chosen as opposed to kind of a regulatory model or a legislative model is because of the evolving nature of the forest products industry, how rapidly things are changing and how new products that can achieve higher levels of stress and tolerance in a large building will develop, we believe, as a result of this legislation.

N. Macdonald: How much money was spent, then, on provincially funded buildings in 2008-09, for instance? If you have another year other than that in the proximity, but just an idea of how much is spent on provincially funded buildings in a recent year.

Hon. P. Bell: The statistics I have here are for what we expect to be building in '09-10 and '10-11, so I hope that will serve the member's purpose. That is over two years. If he divides these numbers by two, then he would get an average for those two years. A total of 178 projects, we believe this legislation will touch. Out of those 178 projects, it's a total of a little over $4.8 billion in capital, so roughly $2.4 billion per year.

I can break that down for the member opposite: advanced education, just under $700 million; Corrections has $182 million; schools, $345 million; health authorities, just under $3 billion; social housing, $446 million; and then $176 million for other projects. That is all over the two-year period, so you would have to divide that by two to get an average for those numbers.

N. Macdonald: Does the ministry have any projections, then? I mean, if we had used a number from the past, you could go back and see how much of that was perhaps wood as a primary building product. But have there been studies? Are there ideas about how much of that total building cost…? Presumably, that's not all capital. That would include the labour and things like that. How much is that going to represent, according to the ministry, in terms of material that is wood?

Hon. P. Bell: Our analysis of the projects that I mentioned to the member opposite is that it will add an additional $209 million board feet of consumption in the province. That is roughly the equivalent of one large Interior sawmill.

N. Macdonald: The minister has indicated that this is something that would apply to seismic upgrading. I think the minister talked about perhaps a new jail, or things like this. Are we talking about the full scope of every public building would have what the minister describes as a requirement? Is that the thinking here?

Hon. P. Bell: That's correct.

N. Macdonald: With this requirement, is there a presumption that there would be no increase in costs, or is there thinking that there is a possibility of increases in costs? If so, is there a study that the ministry has done to see whether that's going to be the case or not?

Hon. P. Bell: We did do some work, particularly reviewing some initiatives in the United States over the last number of years. What we found, in fact, is that in many situations there's actually a reduction in cost, not an increase. On balance, we believe that this will at minimum be neutral and perhaps will end up being a cost savings.

[1745]

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

N. Macdonald: We look at best practices then, which the minister referred to. It says: "In order to promote the use of wood in provincially funded buildings, the minister may do the following…." Is there any requirement for the minister to do any one of the three items laid out there in best practices in section 3?

Hon. P. Bell: The member will know, having been around this House for about four and a half years, that there are two terms that are used in legislation of this nature: "may" and "will." Those two terms are used in specific circumstances depending on what one is trying to accomplish in the legislation.

The term "may" is used in the event of having an empowering piece of legislation that gives a minister or cabinet or someone within government, a statutory decision-maker, the authority to create policies and frameworks that are implemented. Whereas the term "will" is used in circumstances where the legislation is
[ Page 1246 ]
 being directive in nature, where there are very specific sets of criteria. So it is wording that is used depending on what is trying to be accomplished in any given piece of legislation, whether it be the Wood First Act or any other act.

If the member looks through other legislation in our binders or legislation that's in place, you'll see that those two terms are used depending on the circumstance. We believe that an empowering model was the correct model to use in this particular act because it creates the flexibility necessary to adopt new products and new processes by the forest industry and allow you to make changes that are necessary in an expedient manner.

N. Macdonald: So the term "requirement" in the purpose is modified by the best practices where you use the term "may," and it means that the three ideas that are put forward here haven't been completely thought through or will emerge as time goes on?

Is that the thinking, then, that the recommended best practices to advise in the form and content to carry out prescribed responsibilities, those are yet in the government's mind to be identified in some meaningful way? Or have they been identified, and would we have access to best practices, for instance?

Hon. P. Bell: I've tried to point out a couple of times now that best practices will evolve over time.

There is a new product that I reviewed a few weeks ago that replicates Parallam but brings different qualities to the beam — lighter overall beams, easier to handle, greater strengths in the beam. It's still in an experimental stage, and we don't know whether that beam will be successful in terms of long-term development or not. I hope so. I think it looks very exciting.

There's a product called CLT, cross-laminated timber. I know the member opposite is familiar with that product as well. It's relatively new. There's been some primary use of CLT in the European marketplace. The Canadian government is working with us, considering the use of CLT in a couple of pilot projects in British Columbia. So all these technologies are rapidly changing.

[1750]

While the ministry and other ministries within government, particularly those in charge of building code, have already been establishing best practices to bring forward to me for implementation upon the passing or approval of this act, there are other technologies that are changing constantly, and we need to have the flexibility in this act to be able to add those new technologies in play.

The member asked the question: "Are there some best practices that have already been established?" We are working on that process now, and we anticipate implementing them as this act moves through this stage and eventually is endorsed by the House. However, there will be many more best practices that will come forward. Whether it is me as the current Forests Minister or future Forests Ministers, we'll have the ability to review those and adopt those as best practices as well.

N. Macdonald: Just to be clear, then, the minister is saying that the ministry will be the repository of those best practices and, immediately upon this passing or immediately upon it receiving royal assent, will act as the repository of those ideas and will be recommending best practices for each and every building.

So if a school district is building a school, they would be required to contact the Ministry of Forests, and the Ministry of Forests would lay out a series of ideas about how they could use wood instead of the variety of other products that they may be considering.

Hon. P. Bell: I would say that that is all correct. I would simply add, in the example that the member used, that we would also involve the Ministry of Education and the Minister of Education in working with the particular school district on that building. But everything the member just said is correct.

N. Macdonald: Here again, the minister has indicated that the studies he has done indicate that this would not add an additional cost. But if there was an additional cost, is this something that the ministry would take into consideration, or would it be a requirement that even if it did cost more — for instance, to build a school or to do a seismic upgrading or to build some other type of structure — that that cost would not mean compromising the needs of the building? Has that been considered? Would there be additional funds, if they were required?

Hon. P. Bell: I'll just reinforce my earlier comments, which are that we're not anticipating any additional costs and that in fact there's some very good evidence that we'll see a reduction in costs in the majority of buildings.

But you know, it is possible that a building could cost more — particularly a large structure, perhaps, something of that nature, or newer technology — and that would, of course, be incorporated into the overall financial request for the construction of that building and would be included in the capital envelope that was provided to that particular project.

N. Macdonald: In (b) it talks about advising "on the form and content of agreements and other arrangements for the design…." Could the minister just explain what sort of process, I guess, he is expecting to put boards of education through — or others who may be building? Is it automatic that they would have to put it through to the Ministry of Forests and then you'd have personnel there that would review and in a timely manner return
[ Page 1247 ]
 the agreements or other arrangements for the design and construction?

Hon. P. Bell: The intent of this section is to ensure that there would not be any switching-out of building materials during the construction process — that the contract would specify the use of wood in each of the various steps that had been agreed to as a result of the best-practices analysis.

That's a little bit different, perhaps, than some of the contracts that have been used in the past, where it was a contract that didn't necessarily specify building material types and left the flexibility to the contractor to make those decisions. This just gives the Minister of Forests the ability to ensure that the contract does include the requirement of wood throughout the project.

[1755]

N. Macdonald: You have within the Ministry of Forests, then, presumably, people who are going to be responsible for setting up this repository of best practices. You also will have staff that in a timely manner are going to advise on the form and content of agreements and so on.

Obviously, the minister has thought through the additional staff or the repositioning. How many staff does the minister believe it will take to be a repository for best practices and to provide timely advice on the form and content of agreements and other arrangements for the design and construction of these provincially funded buildings?

Hon. P. Bell: The procurement teams that we have in place currently do very good work in terms of ensuring that buildings are built in the way that is prescribed within the normal capital funding envelopes and requirements that are associated with that. This is simply an additional requirement that will be brought forward. The staff that are in place are more than capable of ensuring the delivery of this new particular component of the capital funding requirements that we are bringing in place.

By itself, it's not an additional staff requirement per se. It can be delivered within the existing staffing envelopes that we have, both on the procurement side and then the follow-up, to ensure that the buildings are built appropriately.

N. Macdonald: Maybe we'll just go into a bit more detail on that, because the minister has said that the best practices would sit within the Ministry of Forests. For them to be best practices, there have to be people who are judging, I would guess in a fairly sophisticated way, the qualities of the products and whether they're appropriate.

I mean, if we're talking about seismic upgrading and using wood instead of other structures, we're talking about some fairly sophisticated information that would be needed.

The minister has said that that expertise is going to sit within the Ministry of Forests. I realize that there are existing teams that would look at procurement and so on, but those existing teams do not sit with the Ministry of Forests, I would think.

So we must be talking about a new responsibility. There must be personnel that are going to be asked to put together best practices. There must be personnel that are going to actually sit there and review in the Ministry of Forests the content of these agreements and to advise.

I guess that's a question. How many staff in the Ministry of Forests are going to be put towards recommending best practices and giving advice on the form and content of the agreements?

Hon. P. Bell: This, again, is an evolving number, so it could change over time, especially as there's an influx of information coming into the repository for best practices. But the current staffing complement working on this is five, and then there are about 15 procurement specialists across government that will be advising on best practices — not necessarily sitting in the Ministry of Forests and Range, but sitting in other ministries as well.

[1800]

Then the five are inside the Ministry of Forests and Range, and they'll be the ones who will have responsibility for holding the best practices, filing them accordingly and then bringing them forward to me for approval.

N. Macdonald: Just to give me a sense, the five individuals would be doing this full-time? And are they people that currently are employed within the Ministry of Forests so that this would not be any additional FTEs? So just an idea there. How much of the time for those five individuals would be the accumulation of information about best practice?

Hon. P. Bell: First of all, to answer the second question first, these are not new individuals. They are people within the Ministry of Forests and Range. As the member knows, there's been a significant reduction in the total amount of harvest across the province. I guess it's a little under two-thirds of what we were at, so there are staff available for projects of this nature. That's to answer the second question.

The first question is in terms of what percentage of these individuals' time will be involved in cataloguing these best practices and bringing them forward. As this moves over the next number of weeks and it becomes, hopefully, proclaimed or enacted and is brought into place, it will depend on how quickly the best-practices information comes in from individual ministries.

It could be 100 percent of those five individuals' time. If they are not fully focused on that and they have residual time, certainly we'd use them on other projects as well.
[ Page 1248 ]
 

We have to be flexible in the implementation. I'm anticipating that there will be a significant work flow, not necessarily immediately upon the enactment of this bill but perhaps two or three months after, as we see more of this information coming forward.

Then, as we come out of that period of time, it could slow down a bit in terms of the number of new best practices coming forward. But I don't think there is much question that there will be a period of time where they will be very, very busy.

N. Macdonald: Another question is…. So these are five individuals, or five FTEs, that are coming from existing areas. The minister has identified the fact that with harvesting levels down, perhaps there are people that could be moved in here.

But it seems to me that when we're talking about best practice in the use of wood and construction, we are talking about some pretty sophisticated knowledge that the person would need in terms of describing best practice — deciding whether it was appropriate to use the product in seismic upgrading, for instance.

Are these people…? It doesn't sound like they're engineers. It seems that you're then going to ask them, in section (b), to provide advice not only on the actual construction but also on the design. These seem to be very specific individuals that you would need, and to simply move people over from harvesting or some other area within the ministry seems a bit strange.

Is that actually what the minister is thinking? Or are we actually talking about far more trained individuals — perhaps engineers, perhaps individuals like that?

Hon. P. Bell: I'll just step back. Perhaps I didn't provide a full answer previously. I mentioned that there are five people within the Ministry of Forests and Range that are responsible for holding the best-practices information, cataloguing it and making recommendations. But the people actually developing the best practices are the other 15 that are spread across government. They come from divisions like the building and safety policy branch and from places like woodworks and individuals who have a tremendous amount of expertise in this area.

Those are the 15 that prepare the best practices. They bring them forward to these five folks in the Ministry of Forests and Range, who then catalogue that information, figure out how it's best disseminated and bring it up to me for final approval. That's the process and how that actually happens.

[1805]

N. Macdonald: That makes far more sense. Essentially then, the skill set is to simply keep the material. So perhaps something similar happens with the advice. That's what I'd ask the minister.

The minister talked about the advising taking place within his ministry. Is it again dispersed amongst 15 in different areas, or will the people within the minister's staff take the information they have and lay out a set of options for those that choose to build and have them take professionals that are then going to judge the suitability of the various products that are put in front of them?

Just a question, then, on (b). Who is going to be actually doing the advising?

Hon. P. Bell: I'm just going to step back to a previous answer I provided the member.

When asked, I used an example of how a seismic upgrade would be handled. And would it be the Ministry of Forests and Range that would be providing best practices on that seismic upgrade? I mentioned to the member opposite that we would also be including the Ministry of Education in that particular decision, because they hold the expertise in that area and can pull from the shelf-ready approaches to best practices to deliver a project for a seismic upgrade that makes sense, that provides the best overall results.

The individuals throughout government in each ministry would be involved in the final decision-making process. We would provide to each of those individuals the array of best practices and experiences that we have had over a period of time.

There is an organization that I think the member is aware of called Wood Works in B.C. that has been at this for about ten years now, has a significant amount of expertise and has delivered a very good-quality product. This act gives them a lot more teeth and the ability for us to require further consumption of wood in these projects.

The actual decision-making process will provide an array of shelf-ready best practices. The individual ministry…. There would be someone within that ministry focusing on that project that would then pick and choose from those best practices. The capital secretariat, along with myself, would make the final decision to make sure that we believe that wood was fully being utilized in the project wherever and whenever possible.

N. Macdonald: So the minister may do (a) and (b). One is to recommend best practices, so presumably to put ideas in front of those that are going to be building, and then to provide advice.

To what degree will the project be required to use wood if a decision is made at a different place? Presumably, these projects may have as little as 5 percent or 10 percent participation from the provincial government.

But for a variety of reasons, if you have somebody using provincial money that looks at the best practices and hears the advice but decides to proceed with a different product, what's the minister's thinking around
[ Page 1249 ]
 how strongly the government is going to push the use of wood? Or is it something that would go depending on project-to-project…? What's the minister's thinking on how far the ministry and this government are going to push that idea?

Hon. P. Bell: Our expectation is that if there are provincial funds involved in the project, the project will use wood wherever and whenever possible. I have already kind of outlined for the member opposite the decision matrix that we will go through to ensure that that is happening.

The expectation is that if the provincial government is funding a portion of the project, this legislation will apply.

[1810]

N. Macdonald: For "(c) carry out prescribed responsibilities" — just a description of what that term means in this bill.

Hon. P. Bell: Prescribed responsibilities are regulations by nature, so cabinet would have the authority to pass an order-in-council that would require me to perform in a specific way — or a future Minister of Forests — in terms of the implementation of this act.

N. Macdonald: In terms of the approximate cost of being a depository for the best practices, what's the approximate cost that the minister has?

Hon. P. Bell: We're anticipating the initial startup of this project in the neighbourhood of $200,000.

N. Macdonald: Thinking about the cost for the advice, in terms what it would cost, for instance, a board of education…. I mean, have all of those costs been considered, as well as providing advice from the various ministries? How much, approximately, will it cost to provide advice on the form and content of agreements and other arrangements, and design and construction?

Hon. P. Bell: In terms of the development of this project, initially we're anticipating the costs to be in the range of $200,000. But the member may have asked another question, and that was the implementation of agreements — having agreements drafted as part of an individual project. I'm not certain that the member asked that question, but I'll assume that he did.

As I mentioned earlier, our analysis of the implementation of this is that it may actually save money. In fact, we think that many of the buildings will be built less expensively as a result of that. All of the costs associated with the development of contracts — the implementation, the best practices, the building design — would be included in that end price.

There is some pretty good evidence to that. I've seen some evidence here in B.C., where wood was chosen by a previous government. A great chair of the school board at the time, a particularly strong chair of the school board, insisted on the use of wood in a school in school district 57.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

N. Macdonald: Section 4, then, is the power to make regulations. The minister has answered most of the questions about that. Here, again, it says that cabinet "may make regulations as follows: (a) requiring reports…." Is the thinking that there would be reports required almost immediately on provincially funded buildings?

Hon. P. Bell: Not necessarily, but we wanted to give ourselves that option in the event that we did not feel that the initial best practices component was delivering the results we expected.

N. Macdonald: Just the preparation of reports. It sounds like that's still something that is emerging.

[1815]

A question on this, I guess. Does the minister anticipate a consultation period on some of these things before regulation comes in? Or is this something that's just a matter of time, that the basics are there and they just intend on moving into this fairly quickly? Is there a consultation process with various potential builders of provincially funded buildings?

Hon. P. Bell: Normally, government would consult on any new regulations, and we would anticipate consulting on any new regulations that went forward in this particular act.

N. Macdonald: Here again, just the wording "may," which the minister has explained. I mean, it is an odd modifier for things that are required. Is there a timeline that the minister has for fully implementing section 4? Is this something that we would expect within months of getting royal assent, or is this something that is a project that will likely extend into a longer period? So a timeline that we can expect this to be completed.

Hon. P. Bell: Section 4 is not something that we anticipate implementing immediately. We want to go ahead and move forward on best practices and see how the act evolves. If it's necessary to go into a reporting model, then we would go out and consult on that and implement it at some point in the future.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.
[ Page 1250 ]

Title approved.

Hon. P. Bell: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendments.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:18 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

Bill 9 — wood first act

Bill 9, Wood First Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

[1820]

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

Hon. I. Chong moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 6:21 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ABORIGINAL RELATIONS
AND RECONCILIATION

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); J. McIntyre in the chair.

The committee met at 2:31 p.m.

On Vote 11: ministry operations, $65,150,000.

The Chair: Minister, sorry. I should have asked you. Would you have any opening comments?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'll just, first of all, introduce the very capable staff that will be assisting me during the estimates process. On my immediate left is Deputy Minister Bob de Faye. On my immediate right is the senior financial officer for the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, David Hoadley. Also assisting us during these estimates will be Deputy Ministers Steve Munro and Arlene Paton, along with Glen Ricketts, who is in an acting role for strategic initiatives.

With that, I want to say, I guess, briefly that in the short time I've had the honour of being the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, I've very much enjoyed the opportunity of working with the very, very capable team that has been assembled at Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation.

They do a great job and invariably provide excellent advice to me, including providing me with the advice that I've forgotten to introduce Tara Faganello, the ADM of corporate services. I apologize for (a) mispronouncing her name and (b) failing to introduce her at the outset.

Thank you for that.

We do have an excellent team there. The ministry is involved in numerous lines of endeavour, all aimed at improving the opportunities and the socioeconomic conditions for first nations and aboriginal people in the province of British Columbia. Treaty is certainly an important part of the work that we do at the ministry, and I'm sure that will be an area that the opposition and other members may wish to canvass quite extensively.

But that's just part of the work that is done at Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. There are numerous initiatives, reconciliation agreements, strategic engagement agreements and other areas where we look to partner with first nations and often with the federal government, as well, in trying to develop new ways that new opportunities can be generated for first nations in this province.

I'm looking forward to the opportunity of hearing the questions from all members of the House, and we will do our best to answer the questions in as comprehensive a way as we can.

B. Simpson: As a new critic to this portfolio, I have found it quite an interesting and engaging experience. It has lots of history to it.

[1435]

I often joke that I feel like I'm engaged in another master's foray in trying to understand the nature of the file and the nature of what some of the possibilities are. I'd like to explore some of those possibilities with the minister under the appropriate vote here.

Just in terms of how we'll structure estimates, because we only have this afternoon, I've asked MLAs who have specific community-based questions to come in between three and about four or 4:15. It's just easier from a management perspective, as the minister well knows, just to give them a time slot and let them come in, and we'll just have to roll with whatever their questions are. I had apprised the minister's office of that.
[ Page 1251 ]
 

I will be spending some time, as the minister can probably guess, on the front end, on reconciliation act and new relationship and where we are in those. Then we'll open for the MLAs, and I may have to continue to pursue that post-that. But then, of course, getting into some of the budget questions that we have, because this is budget estimates and there are some questions about appropriations for various functions that the ministry has. Then into the treaty to close off the day.

I do have some other questions that I will throw in at appropriate times, just where I believe that they fit. Given that we only have four hours, we have lots to canvass, and hopefully, we'll get through it.

As far as my opening comments are concerned, as I indicated, I'm learning lots, and I do apologize to all first nations if I do not get their first nations community name correct. I respect their language, and I respect their use of their first language, but I'm not versed in it, so sometimes it's very difficult to even phonetically pronounce some of the first nations names. If Hansard needs some spellings from me, I will be happy to give those spellings at another time.

Secondly, I want to give my appreciation to the elders and the community leaders and chiefs who have spent an enormous amount of time with me over the last few months, trying to get me to understand what is going on from their perspective.

I have visited two elders' gatherings in the Chilcotin. It was quite an interesting experience to sit there and to sort of understand what's going on from the elders' perspective because, as the minister probably well knows, I think there's fracturing of views within first nations communities that makes this matter a lot more complicated if you sit with young entrepreneurs and business leaders and the up-and-coming leaders.

They have a "let's just get on with it" kind of attitude that they want to get moving on. Sometimes that conflicts with what elders believe needs to be done, and sometimes that conflicts with what political elected officials and leaders want to be done.

I'm sensitive to that as I ask questions here, because I think that within first nations communities there's a real sensitivity about where we're going to land on a lot of these issues. Again, I'll just put on the public record that I'm asking my questions as I understand things. If some of those questions give offence, I apologize in advance. But I admit my ignorance in advance, and I'm asking the questions out of ignorance and in order to understand this file a lot better.

With that, I'd like to start on reconciliation act and the new relationship. I would like to ask the minister a specific question about the reconciliation act. That's where we'll start.

The throne speech in September '09, the most recent throne speech, stated quite clearly: "Reconciliation demands that we listen to first nations, and clearly, more work must be done before the recognition and reconciliation act is introduced to this House. While we develop further understanding, we will continue to press for improvements in other ways."

I'd like to ask the minister if, from the government's perspective, the reconciliation and recognition act is a dead issue.

Hon. G. Abbott: First of all, I wanted to thank the opposition critic for advising us of the general lay of the land in terms of the questions being asked so that we could have appropriate officials on hand to most effectively deal with the questions as they came up. That's appreciated.

I know from having been an opposition critic in past years and a minister of a few different ministries now that estimates always take some twists and turns that the opposition critic may not have contemplated at the outset. Nevertheless, we appreciate the effort that this opposition critic has made to have the orderly unfolding of the estimates process here today.

[1440]

I should also, at the outset, express my appreciation and the government's appreciation for the opportunity for us to meet today on the traditional territories of the Esquimalt and Songhees First Nations. That is always appreciated.

In terms of the issue of the recognition and reconciliation proposed act and the discussion paper and so on, I think I would respond to the member's question this way. The R-and-R discussion paper, the proposal to have an R-and-R act, I think, was a very well-intentioned and intensive effort on the part of not only provincial government and the first nations leadership; it was an attempt to give expression to some principles which are hugely important in terms of first nations in the province.

The issue. The member is correct in noting that there was a reference to it in the throne speech of 2009, the earlier throne speech of 2009. The bill did require further consideration.

What occurred post-election, as the member well knows, was that the First Nations Leadership Council undertook what I thought was a very thoughtful and comprehensive community consultation process with first nations across the province. The leadership council met probably dozens of times in different corners of the province to hear directly from first nations people what their views were with respect to the content of the R-and-R act.

Much of the discussion focused on a suggestion, which actually came to us from the First Nations Leadership Council, that is central to the meshing of the concepts that are contained in the discussion paper and would have been contained in the legislation. That was the notion of reconstituting the approximately 203 first nations band governments in the
[ Page 1252 ]
province into approximately…. I use "approximately" advisedly, because it was never intended to be definitive. It was intended to be sort of an example of what could be done. There was a map which contained about 30 reconstituted indigenous nations. That was certainly an important element in the R-and-R discussion paper and certainly would have been in any legislation as well.

That reconstitution, it is fair to say, ran into, as I understand it, a considerable storm of criticism in the first nations communities that were visited. The first nations leadership, as a consequence of that pronounced opposition to reconstitution of the 203 first nations governments into indigenous nations, at their meeting…. I think that the member may have attended the meeting in late August where chiefs from across the province as well as some councillors gathered in North Vancouver, as I recall, and produced the resolution that no further work be undertaken in respect of the R-and-R act.

We certainly, first of all, respect the fact that the first nations leadership went out and fully canvassed, fully consulted with first nations communities across the province. I think we're very respectful and appreciative that they undertook that work.

They got a very clear message back from the first nations governments that reconstitution wasn't on and that no further work should be done in respect of the preparation of an R-and-R act. That is a direction that we respect from the first nations leadership.

[1445]

I would say this. The important elements in the R-and-R discussion paper and the act, excluding the reconstitution of first nations governance, which I think has clearly been rejected by first nations….

Still, there are important elements. The issue of shared decision-making on the land base, the issue of shared revenue from economic activity on the land base and other elements in the R-and-R discussion paper are still going to be important issues, along with the consultation and accommodation in terms of better defining our relationship with first nations in relation to economic development on the land base.

What we aim to do at this point, to complete this long answer to the member's very brief and incisive question, is look at those elements and, rather than giving expression to those elements in a statute, give expression to those elements in the form of either community agreements or regional agreements that might draw those elements into an agreement which, hopefully, has the effect of producing additional opportunities for first nations and ultimately has the effect of narrowing what are unacceptable gaps in socioeconomic conditions between first nations communities and other communities in the province of British Columbia.

The Chair: I would just like to remind members that although the administrative work of the ministry is well discussed under Vote 11, legislation is not properly a focus of the Committee of Supply debate.

B. Simpson: Just for context, this piece of legislation actually would have completely changed the face of our relations with aboriginal communities and aboriginal leaders. It would have set a brand-new context. As the minister has already pointed out, it involved shared decision-making. It involves shared resources, which is a taxpayer issue on how those resources are going to be shared and in what form they are going to be shared.

If the question I'm posing about an act that actually has very significant financial implications for the province isn't under this budget discussion, then I'm not quite sure what is. What first nations wish to understand and what we as opposition wish to understand…. The minister started to get into that answer.

An act may not be on the table, in which case, then, I can go on to the current state of the new relationship. But I need clarity as to whether we're going to continue down the path of legislation, which then reframes the entire ministry.

That's the context within which I'm asking questions, and they have significant budgetary implications, depending on where we land on that. It frames all of my questions from this point.

To the minister's point, I just want to clarify a couple of things and then go back to a question. As the minister pointed out, the reconstitution was an issue. There are lots of questions around how the reconstitution came into play and the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs' map. But there were also issues of the recognition of Crown title as well as recognition of aboriginal title — questions of the formulation of a new entity. Again, I would be curious if the minister thinks that that new entity is part of what they're going to do as well.

The participation of the federal government is a big question as well. Aboriginal right and title are recognized under section 35 of the constitution, so there are lots of questions as to why we have to have an act.

So with the Chair's indulgence and with the warning, again, I'd like to absolutely be clear. Is the government intending to continue to attempt to achieve reconciliation and recognition through a specific and explicit act for the province of British Columbia? Is that still on the table, and is it part of the discussions that are going on?

Hon. G. Abbott: Thank you, hon. Chair. I will try to follow the guidance which, very appropriately, you provided us with.

[1450]

I would say that the three elements that are live, live, live, as opposed to dead, dead, dead, in terms of the discussion are reconciliation, shared decision-making on the land and shared revenue from economic activity on the land base. All three of those were important princi-
[ Page 1253 ]
ples or concepts that were enunciated in the new relationship agreement. As I said in my earlier, longer response to the member's question, we will be attempting to give appropriate expression to those elements in community agreements and in regional agreements as we move into the future.

As the member knows — because I know that the member has been a good student in this area, as I've tried to be, since our appointment — consultation and accommodation has been something that has been very much a focus in terms of the management of the relationship between the Crown and first nations over the past couple of decades that this has been an important issue. We keep trying to find ways to give appropriate expression to what the responsibilities of the Crown are, what the responsibilities of first nations are, and so on.

The aim as we move forward in time from our present place is to give expression to those issues in agreements. You know, there's nothing magical about saying community and regional. I want to see agreements where we can achieve them — whether they're treaties, whether they're reconciliation agreements, whether they're economic development agreements or strategic engagement agreements.

The agreements themselves. While they're important in and of themselves, they are vehicles to take us forward in terms of economic opportunity, social opportunity, educational opportunity, all aimed at narrowing what I'm sure every member of the House would agree are the absolutely unacceptable gaps that exist between the socioeconomic conditions in first nations communities versus those in communities elsewhere in the province.

B. Simpson: We will definitely come to the minister's final comments there, because the throne speech referred to it as a national shame, and we need to explore it — for the Chair, so that I don't get my wrist slapped again.

One of the things about this ministry that is intriguing — and I'm sure that the minister must be finding it intriguing…. It's a ministry of influence, and it has influence over other ministries' strategic objectives and budgets and so on.

While it has a definitive budget, one of the things I will be exploring is: how does the ministry assign resources and budget to therefore influence other ministries' resources and budgets? With that, I'm going to have to sort of play around with what latitude I get to explore those questions.

Given that and given the minister's comments…. There's a suggestion in there that all might be right. We'll just flip back out of a reconciliation act that was a dead end for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was the vociferous response on the part of first nations when the leadership council took it out to them. We'll just default back to the new relationship. That's effectively what I am hearing the minister indicate.

In the new relationship are the attempts at reconciliation through various mediums and means — through shared decision-making, resource sharing. But in the response from the first nations on the reconciliation act and its failure…. They determined that it was a dead issue.

This is a news release immediately after the All Chiefs Assembly in which they rejected the proposed legislation. The language of the All Chiefs is very telling. What I need to understand as the critic is: what does this mean in terms of the assigned resources to this ministry relative to the first nations assessment of the government success or failure on new relationship?

For the record, I'm reading a news release dated August 28, 2009, from the All Chiefs Assembly that occurred in North Vancouver on the Coast Salish territory. These are their words for the record.

[1455]

"When we travelled through the province to the many regional sessions and community meetings, we consistently heard the deep concerns of the potential impacts of the proposed legislation on our indigenous title and rights. Our people and leadership judge the province not by their words but by their continued actions that infringe on their territories and resources. The province of British Columbia cannot and does not have jurisdiction over indigenous rights and title, and as such, the proposed legislation is dead."

So that's the definitive statement on the part of first nations: that legislation is not the way to go about it. However, the default back to new relationship — and it's what I want to explore after we get some of the MLAs up here — is also clearly at odds with how I understand first nations. I've attended the summit meeting, the union meeting and the assembly meetings and heard it loud and clear from the floor.

It's captured here with a quote from Chief Stuart Phillip. Again, a quote from the same press release: "Clearly, the Premier and his government have not acted honourably through the course of the so-called new relationship. Indigenous communities demand substance, not empty platitudes."

One of the things that I'm curious about from the minister's perspective and inheriting a new file is: is it his sense that the new relationship…? If it's not a reconciliation act, if it's now back to trying to enhance the new relationship that was in play before the act came on, does it need to be tweaked? Does it need to be completely redefined?

What is it that the minister is going to do to address the very strong concerns on the part of the first nations leadership about the state of the new relationship, then? Does the minister have an action to address the lack of confidence that first nations have in this government's so-called new relationship?

The Chair: Thanks to the member. Your opening remarks helped sort of clarify where I was hoping you'd be moving towards.
[ Page 1254 ]
 

Hon. G. Abbott: The member has raised a number of issues in his question, and I'll try to give, I guess, a fair and accurate response to them.

I do think that The New Relationship remains a very vital document. I believe The New Relationship remains the source, hopefully, for inspiration which can lead us to specific agreements on the land base, either on a community basis or on a broader regional basis. I haven't heard the member suggest, nor have I heard any member of first nations leadership suggest, that the elements contained within the new relationship agreement are not the right elements.

I think there is broad agreement that, in fact, those should remain the guideposts that will bring us forward to new agreements — again, whether they are treaties or reconciliation agreements or strategic engagement agreements or other agreements — and that those remain the principles which will underline the work that will be achieved through those agreements. So I think it's important to set that out.

I know there was a good deal of disappointment, not only by Grand Chief Stuart Phillip but by others, that R-and-R received the reception that it did in first nations communities, and I know that that disappointment might lead at times to expressions in news releases and elsewhere, which are perhaps not, in the longer term, constructive. But that's what occurs when we get into these very challenging situations where people are expressing different views than what had been expected.

I don't put an enormous store in news releases or the quotes contained in news releases. I'm glad to hear the expressions of anyone, whether they're a first nations leader or just a citizen in a first nations community or a member of a first nations band, whether they're on reserve or off reserve. I have never, since I took on this office in early June, said no to a meeting with anyone from first nations or other who had a good idea about how we can move these very, very challenging files forward.

[1500]

The member knows, as indeed I know, that there is much in our history over the past 150 years — since contact by Europeans for the first time into what is now the jurisdiction of British Columbia, then inhabited exclusively by first nations — that is unfortunate. There is much in that history that is shameful. There has been much that has been done by governments over 150 years that would not produce a climate of trust between first nations and governments.

So the object of our work has to be to build that trust, to give expression to that trust, whether it's big agreements or small agreements, and hopefully, to build on whatever positive momentum we can generate and try to ensure — again, through these vehicles — that we have the outcome where a young first nation has all of the opportunities that any other citizen of British Columbia would have, whether it's in education or any other area of economic endeavour — all of the opportunities that other British Columbians enjoy.

Certainly my goal and government's goal will be to give expression to those concepts in agreements which, hopefully, will see us narrow the gap between aboriginal communities and other communities in British Columbia.

B. Simpson: I'm going to switch over to the period of time that we've assigned for MLAs, and I will come back to this discussion after that.

C. Trevena: I have a couple of questions for the minister that I hope he can help me with. They're about one reserve in my constituency, North Island. I think he must be quite familiar with it. It's the Tsulquate reserve and the issue of housing there.

I noted in the throne speech was very pleased — I think everybody was very pleased — to hear the commitment to looking at housing and how we could deal with housing. As the minister will know, I have raised the issue of housing for quite some time at Tsulquate. We still see a lot of problems there. I've been talking with one person who still has 26 people living in his home, including one family who have seven children living in one bedroom.

I wondered how the minister is looking at bringing in resources for this very urgent need, because the band is still only able to deal with mould remediation and not rebuilding. So I would like if the minister could just give some clarification on that.

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for her question. The member is certainly correct in that on-reserve housing — and on occasion, I should say, off-reserve housing, as well, for first nations — is too frequently in an unacceptable or deplorable state.

The situation legally and constitutionally, as I'm sure the member knows, currently is that on-reserve housing is a constitutional responsibility of the federal government. It's not a constitutional responsibility of the provincial government.

That having been said, I think that both the federal and provincial governments, along with first nations leadership, recognize that a more effective solution is likely to involve a tripartite effort on behalf of the first nations housing both on and off reserve.

[1505]

To that end, in May of 2008, B.C. signed a memorandum of understanding with the First Nations Leadership Council and with the federal government, pledging to work together to improve housing conditions on and off-reserve for first nations.

One of the ways that that agreement took expression was in a $50.9 million partnership for new off-reserve
[ Page 1255 ]
 housing for first nations people, and I think there have been a couple of hundred units committed. I think a number of those are completed and probably occupied by now. Some are still in construction and so on — about a dozen projects, I think, in ten different communities in British Columbia providing housing for at least 200 families.

So that's a step in the right direction. It's an early example, I think, of the kind of improvements that one might hope to achieve through tripartite efforts aimed at improving housing conditions both on and off reserve in British Columbia.

C. Trevena: Through the Chair to the minister, I thank him for explaining the tripartite effort. I realize that there is the constitution issue, and I'm pleased that there is a willingness to move, but I think that the ministry is also very well aware of really the sense of urgency for many first nations.

I'm going to be talking about Tsulquate, outside Port Hardy. There's a house where there are 26 people living in one house, another with 23. There's another with 17. These are houses that are seriously overcrowded.

I've been talking with the band. They have money for mould remediation for five of the houses. They had hoped to be able to do ten, but they are putting money for mould remediation to a number of the houses. A number have been condemned. They urgently need money going into building houses. They're overcrowded. They need about 20 houses.

I wondered how I could work with the minister, and the band can work with the minister, to urge the federal government, if it comes to that, to get the money moving quickly so we can get these houses built.

Hon. G. Abbott: I guess, first of all, I'd be very pleased to work with the member in relation to the specific housing problem on the reserve, as she notes, near Port Hardy.

The challenge, of course, is not just one reserve. There are more than enough examples in more than 200 first nations reserves across British Columbia of inadequate or unacceptable housing conditions. I appreciate the member raising those specific issues on that reserve, but they're not, sadly, unique to that reserve. We would find them on far too many reserves across the province.

In terms of attempting to move forward, I have a very good relationship with the federal Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs. I look forward to working with him and working with the federal government and with first nations leadership to try to better understand how the province can support the opportunity to improve housing on first nations reserves and off first nations reserves.

I don't think the solution is as simple as firing more dollars at this. Dollars, I'm sure, are a part of the solution — but only a part of the solution. I think that there needs to be consideration for a number of other issues that may come into play — design and construction and all of those things — that might have a bearing on the success of any housing projects.

By all means, we look forward to working with the federal government and first nations leadership on this. There's certainly much to be done, and I appreciate the member raising the issue.

C. Trevena: They're obviously talking to the minister about this budget. There is the commitment in the throne speech with the tripartite agreement, and there's the willingness, obviously, to work on this. But are there any provincial moneys set aside for housing in this budget and for on-reserve housing in this budget?

[1510]

Hon. G. Abbott: In terms of our budget specifically, there are not dollars for on-reserve housing. The only dollars available in terms of housing currently are, I think, $50.9 million for off-reserve housing. That is a partnership between the province and the federal government. The member may wish to canvass this issue in other estimates, but the short answer to the question is: we do not have housing dollars within this ministry.

C. Trevena: My final question to the minister. When I raised this issue previously during the winter — last winter when it was becoming quite a real problem in that community and then, we heard, in other communities — I talked with the minister, then as the Minister of Health, and with his predecessor Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation to possibly look at this as a way of implementing Jordan's principle because of the health of the children at risk in these houses that are very badly infested by mould and bad living conditions.

Again, I wondered if the minister had had the opportunity to pursue this at all and to see whether this is a way that we can urge the federal government and work provincially to implement Jordan's principle on our housing issue.

Hon. G. Abbott: The issue of Jordan's principle first emerged, I think, in the context of the province of Manitoba and the ability of a young first nations named Jordan — not able to access health care or hospital care as quickly and seamlessly as one should. The issue of Jordan's principle has generally revolved around the ability of on-reserve first nations to access care in public hospitals in British Columbia.

I understand sort of conceptually, I think, the point the member is making — that because housing can have an impact on health outcomes, therefore we could use Jordan's principle to argue the case of why more needs to be done. My response to that is: I don't reject the sort
[ Page 1256 ]
of conceptual framework the member is trying to construct here. I don't reject that. Being a pragmatic politician, as I am and as I know the member is, one uses….

A Voice: Always.

Hon. G. Abbott: Always. That's right, always — exactly. One always uses whatever arguments can have force and effect in achieving the outcome you hope to achieve.

I don't think that we need recourse to Jordan's principle to make the point. Housing is hugely important, not only in health outcomes, but it can have a huge impact on educational outcomes and have a huge impact on employment opportunities. In dozens of ways, housing is important.

I think there is certainly broad recognition of the importance of housing, so we intend to continue to work energetically and in as focused a way as we can with the federal government to try to find new ways that we can improve the situation for housing on reserve and off reserve in the province.

C. Trevena: I'd like to thank the minister for his responses. I urge that he come up, and I invite him to come up, to the constituency to visit with these first nations and, particularly, to see for himself the situation with housing. I'd be happy to facilitate such a meeting.

[1515]

Hon. G. Abbott: Thank you.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for this opportunity. I just wanted to acknowledge that we are on the traditional territories of the Songhees First Nation and the Lekwungen people, and I thank them for allowing us to have this estimates debate on their traditional territories.

My first question deals with the resources within this vote, and it specifically refers to the common table. I know that the minister knows that the common table is a good way to consult with first nations because he's demonstrated his support for that common-table approach.

What I've been told is that many other negotiations are halted because the emphasis is on those groups that are at the front of the stages. The common table is a good way to talk with more than 64 people at that common table and to consult around what are appropriate measures in the treaty negotiations.

My question is…. On August 15 the common table requested some clarification around topics that had been deliberated between the minister and the first nations at the common table. They haven't received an official written response yet.

Some of what they were talking about was some clarity on openings for further dialogue and also areas that are potentially no-go areas from the minister's perspective — for instance, around land status and certainty — because what they say is that they need some clarity on that in order to allocate the resources.

If they know what specifically — getting a written response to their letter on what no-go areas are — then they can stop wasting potential staff time on the ministry's part and their time and also the dollars, which the minister knows first nations have to eventually pay back in treaty settlements. Can I get a response from the minister on when that written response to the August 15 letter might be forthcoming?

Hon. G. Abbott: There is an additional written response to common-table issues that is being prepared. Just to back up a little bit, I know that there was a meeting of senior officials from the federal government, provincial government and first nations leadership as well as the Treaty Commission who discussed a number of potential common-table issues, I think probably over a year ago now.

Since that meeting of officials around common-table issues, there had been a federal election, much discussion of the potential for a recognition and reconciliation act, and there was a provincial election. We got together — the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, myself, the Treaty Commission, the first nations leadership and representatives of those who had led the common-table discussion from the first nations side. We met in Vancouver in August.

From that meeting, both the federal minister and I provided our respective responses to the common-table issues at the August meeting. The understanding that was developed at that meeting was that the federal minister and I, as had been requested at the meeting, would provide copies of our comments that had been provided at the meeting in Vancouver in August.

If there were any questions that flowed by first nations from that discussion and from the copies of our comments, we would be glad to deal with them. We did, as per our agreement, provide comments of our formal response to the common-table suggestions. There is an additional response, a more detailed response, that is now being generated in respect to those questions.

D. Donaldson: I look forward to hearing from the first nations involved around when they receive those written comments. As you undoubtedly are aware, they're anxious to hear from you.

My next question is in regards to the vote on this budget estimate. It's around the Gitxsan model of governance, which the minister might be familiar with. I'm sure he's been briefed on it.

[1520]

In the model of governance that the Gitxsan have, it's a hereditary-based system, and it's a matrinlineal system. It's not just on treaty settlement lands. The
[ Page 1257 ]
Gitxsan model of governance, which has evolved over 10,000 years of occupying the territories up in my area, is around the entire land base.

I know that the minister has indicated flexibility on discussions with the Gitxsan on that, and I congratulate him on those intentions of the flexibility to discuss the entire traditional territories and not just settlement lands. What I'm hearing is that there's not that same flexibility that the Gitxsan are hearing from the provincial gatekeepers at the treaty table. They tell me what they find is that people are carrying forward just with the tried-and-true results from the past and not looking at the flexibility that the minister has indicated.

I'm wondering if this is perhaps part of a revolving-door issue. We've seen many different negotiators at the table and many different staff members at the table. I was part of these negotiations before, and you frequently get different players. It requires a whole new briefing, and perhaps they're not receiving the briefing from the minister at the same time, getting up to speed, because these are complicated issues.

My question is: in this budget, the upcoming budget, have there been any options you've been exploring around how to keep people at the table who have the experience? I don't know if you've looked into incentives or other things, but could the minister describe anything that he's been looking at in that regard?

Hon. G. Abbott: To the member's specific question, Roger Graham has been assigned as the chief negotiator for the negotiation with the Gitxsan. Roger is a deeply experienced and very thoughtful negotiator, and I expect that if anyone is able to bring success to the negotiation, Roger and his team, hopefully, would be able to do that.

I appreciate the member asking the question, because I share the member's interest in the Gitxsan and what the Gitxsan are proposing. It is, from a treaty perspective, unusual.

I've had an opportunity, first of all, to meet for an hour with the Gitxsan and some of their senior advisers in Vancouver. Probably a month and a half ago now we met for an hour. One of the things I said was that I welcome the opportunity to sit down with them for a longer period of time and explore more fully some of the elements that are contained in the model that they appear to be embracing for potential treaty resolutions.

So I'm glad to advise the member that just last week I was able to sit down with them for four hours in my office here at the Legislature. We had an excellent discussion, and I think I now much more fully understand the path that the Gitxsan propose to take in relation to the resolution of treaty issues.

It is a different path, but I guess part of the reason why I have been encouraging sort of flexibility in terms of thought and flexibility in terms of model is that for 150 years governments have been making too many decisions for first nations. If a first nation wants to choose a path that's a little bit different than the conventional path to treaty, I think we owe them at least the obligation to explore that path with them and to see whether it's possible.

As I say, too often we have seen governments try to…. I'm sure, you know, whether it's 30 years ago or 80 years ago or 150 years ago, that the governments of the day were believing that they were acting in the most benevolent fashion in making the decisions on behalf of first nations that they did. But none of that has strengthened the governing culture among first nations.

[1525]

The Gitxsan have an interesting model in that they are wanting to not only move away from the Indian Act but, as I'm sure the member knows well, wants to get into a very different model for ownership of land, for management of lands, for governance. In a whole number of ways it is an unconventional and unusual path, but nevertheless, it's the path that Gitxsan want to take. I think that we owe it to the Gitxsan to explore that path with them.

This is part of the more detailed discussion that we need to have now with the Gitxsan. We need to understand what constitutional limits there may be around some of the elements of flexibility. We need to understand some of the legal constraints that may exist. But again, overall I think that it's just vital that we say at the outset: "We're wanting to look at this with you, because this is the path that you want to embrace."

S. Fraser: Hello to the minister and staff. I'm jumping in the queue here because I have another meeting at 3:30, so that's going to be problematic. Just two issues I'd like to touch on.

One of them I've corresponded on already with the minister, and it's dealing with a historic injustice that I'm hoping to get some kind of reconciliation for. I thank the minister for responding in a timely manner to my requests. I have been trying this for two years now, and I appreciate the fact that we're getting some response. I wanted to touch on the fact.

The historic injustice was back in the 1860s. There was an incident where there was a shipwreck in the north part of Clayoquot Sound in Nuu-chah-nulth territory. The descendants of one of the hereditary chiefs…. Anietsachist was his name. He and another member from the Hesquiaht in the community of Homais, in the north part of Clayoquot Sound, were executed in the village.

In anyone's estimation, looking at this from a historic perspective, they would see it as a grave injustice. It was a kangaroo court. There was an allegation made that there were murders of members of a ship that were shipwrecked. As it turned out, the people that died, died as a result of the shipwreck, and they were quite mutilated
[ Page 1258 ]
 on the rocks of the northern Clayoquot Sound. There was a court decision, a very poor one, where two people were executed, and their descendants are still looking for justice.

I took part in a pole-raising ceremony two years ago in Tofino around that. There were members from all Nuu-chah-nulth and from first nations from as far as Haida Gwaii. Again, recognizing that this is truly about reconciliation and acknowledging a past injustice, which I think is the definition of reconciliation….

I wanted to put that on the table for the minister to know that I'm still hoping we can address this issue. It's not a costly thing; it doesn't cost anything. It's a symbolic gesture, but it would mean so much to the descendants of Anietsachist. I think that it is appropriate. Can the minister comment, please?

Hon. G. Abbott: I know that the member shares my fascination with first nations and other history in British Columbia, and I appreciate him bringing to my attention the historical issue around the hangings that occurred.

What we have done, first of all, to answer the first part of it…. The ministry received the member's correspondence with relation to the Hesquiaht issue. We have, I'm sure, a very lucky researcher in the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation looking into this issue so that they can try to find some historical context to produce some judgment about whether what occurred there was a gross injustice or otherwise. Of course, I don't know, without some level of research, whether that's the case.

[1530]

There is not a lot written on that issue. I note that there are a couple of books, one by Barry Gough called Gunboat Frontier, and another by Peter Johnson, who has written a book with respect to, at least in part, that issue. We'll be utilizing those materials and perhaps utilizing some other primary sources, whether from the archives or elsewhere, that might help us to understand the nature of the injustice there, if indeed it did occur.

If it appears that something terribly unfortunate occurred in terms of the judgments that were made and how they were made, we will try to follow up with an appropriate response to that. Again, I appreciate the member raising the issue for my attention.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for his response. I would suggest one of the primary sources might be the descendants, because as you know, the Nuu-chah-nulth, like most first nations in the province, have an oral history, and they certainly are well aware. There was a song sung by Anietsachist at the gallows in the community, Homais, just before he was executed. The song was proclaiming his innocence, and he sung that right until the last moment. I was moved by that song at the pole-raising.

So there is a historical record. It's an oral history, and that's in keeping with Nuu-chah-nulth and other first nations in the province. I would ask the minister to consider that as a source too.

Secondly and lastly, it's a question around aboriginal housing on reserve. It's a difficult one. With the minister's previous portfolio in Health, I think it's significant. It's fortunate that he has that background, because I don't see….

My previous portfolio as critic was Aboriginal Affairs, as the minister knows. The issue I've raised before in this place is that housing on reserve is technically a federal issue. However, housing is also a health issue on reserve. Therefore, I don't see that the boundaries are necessarily black and white. As the minister knows, we have some horrendous situations with housing on reserve.

I know that in my constituency, in Ahousaht they're not atypical of many first nations communities. If the federal government is not living up to their constitutional obligation, section 35 or whatever, for dealing appropriately with housing, I suggest that that cost falls onto the province to some extent. The incidents of exposure to mould and overcrowding — there are health implications. Certainly childhood asthmas have been documented.

I ask the minister to consider, in this portfolio, looking broadly on this and using his experience from the Health portfolio. If the feds aren't doing their job, and maybe I'm just being optimistic here, we might want to consider addressing some of these dire housing situations on reserve and sending them the bill. At the end of the day, we're all paying for that — certainly the children and the families directly affected by having substandard houses or mouldy houses or overcrowded housing, where we see tragedies with fires and such.

The cost to those may land on other jurisdictions provincially, and local governments too. I'd ask the minister to consider, when he's looking at housing issues on reserve, that the federal government should be held to account for their lackings. We might want to consider actually addressing some of those dire problems — in the interests of cost savings, provincially, but also in the interests of justice.

Hon. G. Abbott: I very much appreciate the member's comments in respect to having an opportunity to speak to the descendants of the deceased and to get a sense from them of what the oral history is around this.

Oral history is an important and a legitimate part of the historical record. I take the member's suggestion, and we will certainly utilize that suggestion in terms of the research we'll undertake.

[1535]

In terms of the member's point with respect to housing, it is not, I would say…. "Technical" understates the importance of housing from a federal perspective.
[ Page 1259 ]
They're not just technically engaged; they're constitutionally responsible for housing on reserve as a product of section 91(24) of the Constitution Act. So they do have a clear responsibility in that area.

Again, though, that is not to say that there are not important connections between housing and health, housing and education, and so on. I certainly don't disagree with the member's contention that one of the principal determinants of health of a community will be the housing of that community.

That would be true whether it's a first nations community or any other community in British Columbia. Where there's substandard housing, there will undoubtedly be additional challenges in terms of health.

So I don't disagree with the member at all on that, nor do I think that the federal government disagrees at all on that. One of the reasons why British Columbia, Canada and first nations leadership were able to agree to the tripartite health plan for British Columbia and to take an unprecedented step in terms of working together on those health issues was, I think, because there is a consensus that health and housing and education and employment and so on are not distinct silos into which individuals fall.

These are all interrelated challenges in people's lives. We need to deal with those challenges in a holistic way, or we're unlikely to be successful in dealing with all those challenges.

So I very much appreciate the member's suggestion. We do hope to find ways to strengthen the fabric for housing both on reserve and off reserve, and we canvassed those a little earlier in estimates. But one shouldn't ignore, either, the opportunities that are produced by treaties, particularly in terms of housing opportunities on reserve.

Invariably, there are land and cash offers from the federal and provincial governments that hopefully are embraced in a successful treaty. Those new resources, both land and cash, serve to strengthen the opportunity for first nations to strengthen the social fabric, including housing, in their communities.

So there are many ways of coming at this. I think, as the member rightly suggests, that we need to work together among at least the three levels of government — often embracing the local level of government as well — to really get sustainable solutions to these very, very challenging issues.

D. Donaldson: I have a question for the minister that pertains to development and certainty on the land base and resources that may be in this vote to work on that issue. Specifically, it's around the Highway 37 transmission line and the timeline that this government has put forward for that.

There have been indications that this government would like to see that transmission line construction started next year — even in 2010, for instance. As the minister is well aware, the issue of development and certainty on the land base is a huge topic for areas where natural resource development occurs. The B.C. Association for Mineral Exploration, as well as the B.C. Mining Association, have pointed to this as the most important factor — the highest priority that they have — in trying to bring development to areas around natural resources.

So my question is: in this budget that we're looking at and considering, what kind of extra resources are being allocated to negotiations specifically with the first nations in the areas that will be impacted by the transmission line? I'm talking about this in the context of not just the transmission line, but the development that the government hopes the transmission line will spawn.

[1540]

As the minister knows, it takes a great deal of lead time to get these negotiations underway and to fruition. Specifically, I understand that the Tahltan have a governance proposal. I talked with the Tahltan Central Council earlier today, and they said that they have a governance proposal in front of the minister.

If you could just elaborate on what kind of extra…. If we're looking at trying to make the Highway 37 transmission line a high priority, hand in hand with that have to go some extra resources towards negotiations with the various first nations up in that area.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'll do my best, as we don't have the overwhelming jurisdiction with respect to that project. The member may wish, for a more comprehensive answer to his important question, to consult with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

In answer to the member's question, the dollars or resources that will backstop the undoubtedly intensive discussions and negotiations that will occur with the Nisga'a, the Tahltan, the Gitanyow, the Gitxsan and, I suspect, others as well, come from the B.C. Transmission Corporation. It is a B.C. Transmission Corp project, so they bring the dollars to the table for the necessary consultation and accommodation that would be part of that project's unfolding.

Again, we don't have the principal responsibility with respect to that project, so there may be other ministers that could be more effectively canvassed than I. Hopefully that's helpful.

D. Donaldson: Somewhat helpful. I'm surprised because I read in budget Estimates that negotiations and interim measures are part of the ministry's responsibility. Of course, I wasn't referring specifically just to the transmission line but to the broader question. Why are we building the transmission line? Well, it's to access resources on traditional territories, and those are what I would anticipate, certainly around the land base, as part of the ministry's mandate.
[ Page 1260 ]
 

I look forward to any further details you could give me as far as…. If this government is pushing the timeline for the Highway 37 transmission line, then we should be pushing the timeline for negotiations with the first nations in those areas so that things can progress in step.

My question, to wrap up, is just on, again, certainty on the land base. I should have congratulated the minister at the start for being assigned such a significant portfolio once again. I know that's likely because there's appetite in the province for getting some of these stalled issues moved ahead. I certainly hope that the minister can do that, and I know he has a great skill set, so maybe we'll see some results soon.

My specific question in regards to this is on the reconciliation and recognition act and the failure of that act. I understand it was primarily around…. One of the big outcomes was certainty on the land base.

I'm just curious. The Chilcotin decision actually was rendered, I believe, a couple of years ago now, maybe further. It actually puts more meat on the bones around aboriginal title and provided what we all are looking for in the province — a little more certainty around that. Yet it's my understanding that the provincial government is appealing that decision.

I'm just curious if you can give me an explanation around why, if the government is interested in certainty on the land base, you'd be appealing a decision that actually gives a little bit more certainty around that.

[1545]

Hon. G. Abbott: Just in terms of clarifying the point. As I noted, B.C. Treaty Commission…. BCTC — not the Treaty Commission, but B.C. Transmission Corporation…. It's an important distinction. We have far too many acronyms in government, and there's an identical one. The Transmission Corp of B.C. Hydro will be bringing the resource to the table because it is their project. They will be supported in the discussions and negotiations both by the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and by the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation.

The ministerial interest will be also there in terms of post-project initiatives that might flow from having new energy resources into the northwest that weren't there before. Even in my discussion with the Gitxsan, they expressed, certainly, a strong interest in some of the possibilities that might flow to the Gitxsan First Nation from the opportunity to have Highway 37 electrification. We very much look forward to working with first nations to, again, identify opportunities that might flow from the larger project.

In terms of the issues around the post-reconciliation-and-recognition world, there was a great quote from Grand Chief Doug Kelly of the Stó:lô Nation which said: "The chiefs in B.C. support recognition…benefit-sharing, distribution, shared decision-making…. So in my view, it's not a step back. It's more of a couple of steps forward."

I think there were a couple of steps forward, at least, that were taken with the R-and-R. It was, as I said at the outset of our discussions, a well-intentioned attempt to bring about a pan-provincial resolution of important issues like: what does shared decision-making on the land base really mean? What is the appropriate level of resource-sharing from economic activity on the land base? What are the proper bounds of consultation and accommodation?

So there are many different elements to this. We tried, through the R-and-R discussion paper and the proposed legislation, to give statutory expression to those principles, but in not proceeding with that, we now need to find other forms of agreement where we can give expression to that.

Again, it may be community agreements. It may be regional agreements, economic and community engagement agreements, strategic engagement agreements, reconciliation agreements. There are different tools we can use, but we will be trying to give expression to those principles as we develop those agreements.

N. Simons: Congratulations on your appointment. It's my first opportunity to ask you some questions.

Obviously, we talk about the jurisdictional issues complicating matters — no more so, I think, than in the area of child welfare. I'm just wondering: what is the arrangement for the minister's staff to meet with other ministries, such as child welfare, in terms of ensuring that the recognition and reconciliation actually includes the children on reserve?

[1550]

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for his congratulatory salutation at the outset of his important question. I appreciate that.

I don't want to misunderstand the member's questions. There are, I think, fairly well-defined roles that the Minister of Children and Family Development has in respect of off-reserve children — and, on occasion, on-reserve children as well. I can't speak as the minister could to how the Ministry of Children and Family Development interacts with the federal ministry of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada or other agencies of the federal government. I think that's probably a question better directed to that minister.

That having been said, the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation works in a supportive role to all ministries across government as they relate to first nations issues. So I have the privilege of meeting regularly with the Minister of Children and Family Development. Where we can assist, we want to do that. But the member may be leading up to another question, which now I won't try to guess.
[ Page 1261 ]
 

N. Simons: Thank you to the minister. I know he knows what I mean. Most people do, usually.

It was a lead-up, but it's actually…. I'm trying to figure out the relationship between MCFD and Aboriginal Relations when it comes to the issue of child welfare, because really, it's essential to first nations that their children are cared for.

Specifically, there was a federal Auditor General's report in March of 2008. The Auditor General of Canada said that there were significant shortcomings in the funding arrangements for first nations child welfare agencies and made recommendations to allow for the provision of preventative funding for these first nations around the province. Unfortunately, for some reason in B.C. — in other provinces it's different — there will be no preventative funding allocated to first nations for child welfare and child protection prevention programs.

What could your ministry do to encourage the minister's colleagues at the federal government to address this longstanding concern that first nations child welfare agencies have?

I'm hoping that the minister…. I'm asking what he can do. I'm hoping that the minister can actually do what other provinces have done and speak directly to the Minister of Indian Affairs to say that this is untenable in British Columbia because preventative services not only make sense, but they also prevent children from entering into crisis, and families the same. So I'm looking forward to hearing what the minister might do.

Hon. G. Abbott: I want to thank the member for the important question, and it is an important question. I know that the Minister of Children and Family Development is much concerned with the precise question that the member raises, which is the apparent discrepancy between the federal funding in, I believe, the province of Alberta principally and comparable funding in other jurisdictions, including British Columbia.

I think the Minister of Children and Family Development is appreciative of the concern, which the member has suggested. Consistent with our supportive role in this area, we've discussed the matter with the minister. I've provided my advice on how I think we might best approach this issue with the federal government, and I look forward to working with the minister and with the federal government to see if we can get some better allocation federally of those child protection dollars.

[1555]

The member makes a very good point. I think it is not a point that's been lost on our provincial Minister of Children and Family Development. The member's suggestion that contact might be made with the federal minister is one that is contemplated, and I appreciate the member raising the issue.

N. Simons: I feel like I've accomplished something. I appreciate the minister's response and thank him for that. I think it's something that really….

Obviously, the minister understands the importance of this. I think the federal government needs to be held to account. The system that's in place now basically pays agencies if they have children in foster care. It's a regressive form of funding, and it's been in existence for 20 years now. The Auditor General federally has finally — I say "finally" — expressed their concern.

My second couple of questions relate specifically to Sechelt, if that's all right. The minister may not know, but his predecessors met with Chief Garry Feschuk at Sechelt to talk about a proposal for a cultural centre.

The Chief was thankful for the positive comments from the Premier, from the previous Minister of Community Development, from the previous minister responsible for aboriginal relations and reconciliation and at all turns was encouraged and made to believe, in fact, that funding, because it had been secured from the federal government and funding had been secured from the first nations government and a part of the funding had been obtained through the province…. A $10½ million project was just over $2 million short because the province wasn't able to step up.

I'm asking on behalf of the Sechelt Nation if, in fact, the minister would be able to speak to the minister responsible for the funding to take a look at that previous correspondence and the previous history that Chief Feschuk had with the province with respect to this particular project and to emphasize the importance of this project — not just for the first nations community in Sechelt but the broader community, I'm pleased to say.

My question is: will the minister be able, in his role, to have a talk with that minister?

Hon. G. Abbott: Thank you to the member for raising the question. I had the honour of meeting just last week with Chief Garry Feschuk. We were meeting on energy issues rather than on the cultural centre issue. But one of the things that we agreed was that we would meet again, hopefully, very soon. I'm looking forward to sitting down with Chief Feschuk, and I suspect the member's issue will be one that the Chief raises in that meeting.

We don't have all of the detail around this. I think it's probably the Minister of Community Development that is principally — or Transportation…. Again, that shows how limited the information is for us with respect to this application.

But to the member's point. I'm looking forward to sitting down with Chief Feschuk. He's been a great leader for his people, and I look forward to sitting down with him and hearing firsthand where we're at.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

[ Page 1262 ]
 

I understand that there had been some dollars go to a project there, but we don't have enough information to be definitive about that. We're always keen to try to support these kinds of projects where we can. I look forward to hearing more about the project. If the member wants to provide me with some more information on that in advance of the meeting with Chief Feschuk, I'm glad to receive that as well. We'll see what we can do. Obviously, it's an important step for the Sechelt First Nation.

[1600]

G. Coons: Minister, congratulations. I see you've dressed the part. That's a challenging portfolio, and I'm sure you're up to the challenge.

I do have a question about the February 2009 report, Aboriginal Employment in British Columbia: Community Engagement. That happened near the end of 2008, and the report came out in February. In it, it was very interesting when, taking in the stakeholders and having the consultations…. Again, looking at the horrendous and dismal unemployment rates in our first nations and aboriginal communities…. In it, it talked about the holistic approach, the pre-employment training, multipartnership sponsors, workplace-based training and supports, cultural awareness training for all stakeholders.

Again, it was based on the labour market agreement that B.C. has with the federal government in trying to look at different approaches for bridging the gap of unemployment in our aboriginal communities.

I'm just wondering what initiatives, what plans, what strategies are out there as a follow-up to this report, that this minister has in mind to help the unemployment rates in our aboriginal communities.

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for his question. The whole issue of first nations employment is a hugely important one, and I'm appreciative of the member asking the question for that reason.

This has been a hugely challenging issue for over 100 years in British Columbia, and it's one that we're certainly dedicated to trying to improve and reverse. It's challenging.

The member may be interested in a book that I read recently, called Makuk, by Prof. John Lutz at the University of Victoria — just a tremendous historical account of the relationship between first nations and government and employers in the province over the last 150 years.

One of the very interesting things I learned from Professor Lutz was that as late as the 1880s the first nations comprised the largest employee group in the province of British Columbia. That held true whether it was fisheries or canneries or forestry or construction. The first nations in British Columbia were very active in pretty much all of the occupations — perhaps not the professions, but certainly in the occupations.

[1605]

What we saw in the period since the 1880s and particularly the early part of the 20th century was that first nations were often systemically and systematically prevented from being a full part of the employment opportunities in the province. There were many, many ways in which…. Again, history points to some quite shameful episodes that really undermined the employment opportunities of first nations.

We need to work with our federal partners and with the first nations leadership to try to build new opportunities for employment and for economic development for first nations in this province. I think that there's much very good work being undertaken to try to improve opportunity.

Again, the building of opportunities is not just one program. It's a multiplicity of programs, and it ranges from the opportunities that might emerge through a treaty agreement or through a reconciliation agreement, a strategic engagement agreement or an economic development agreement with a first nation. There are lots of different ways in which opportunities are enhanced and employment opportunities can be strengthened for first nations. It's very important that we do that, and I know that the member is well familiar with this too.

The demographic challenge for broader British Columbia is around the baby boomer generation, which the member and I are very much a part of. As we get older, we are going to continue to be the dominant part of the demographics of British Columbia, and we are going to need many young people to help deal with the challenges that will come with an older society and particularly the health needs of a much older society. That's a challenge, but it's also a huge opportunity for my children and probably their children, as well, as we move forward in time.

The one part of the demographic that is actually younger is the first nations demographic. About half of the aboriginal population of British Columbia is under 25 years of age. It's quite an astounding demographic issue. There's opportunity there, if we can reach out to first nations, whether on reserve or off reserve, and provide them with opportunities for education or training and, therefore, the opportunity for long-term employment in, hopefully, a growing economy.

The opportunities emerge, and I really want to pay credit to organizations like the B.C. Construction Association, which, in the partnership on BladeRunners with the provincial government and with the federal government, as well, have reached out to aboriginal people to get them engaged in the construction industry. It's been a very successful program and has lots of things that we can learn from it.

The group that I introduced today, associated with the technologists association in British Columbia, is the First Nations Careers Council. Again, it's another great example of an occupational grouping, a professional
[ Page 1263 ]
 grouping, reaching out to the first nations community to inform, consult, mentor, support. All of that is, I think, great work, and I did want to salute those two organizations and others who have gone an extra mile to try to build a relationship with first nations communities.

On the governmental side, it is also important to note that in February 2008 British Columbia and Canada signed a six-year labour market agreement under which British Columbia will receive approximately $66 million a year. This is an agreement on funding that is managed by the Minister of Advanced Education and Labour Market Development and her team — a very, very capable minister, I might add, and a very capable team, who manage the agreement with the federal government.

The Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation is co-funding one program using LMA funding, and that is the aboriginal business and entrepreneurship skills training, which has a wonderful acronym attached to it: BEST.

[1610]

Those are some of the things we are doing. I'd say that, really, our goal in terms of education and training is kind of like the goal on housing, which we've discussed extensively, or the goals on health, which we've canvassed less extensively. That is to ensure that every federal dollar that comes into British Columbia has the maximum beneficial benefit that can be derived from those dollars.

Working with the aboriginal human resource development personnel federally, ensuring that we build the kind of partnerships that the B.C. Construction Association and others have, I think, is hugely important. Again, it's not something that's going to be resolved overnight, but I think there are certainly best efforts by many, many people, both in government and outside of government, to try to improve what the member rightly notes is an unacceptable situation in terms of levels of employment.

G. Coons: Thank you for that, Minister, and thank you for the suggested book to read.

You mentioned the $66 million under the labour market agreement. I'm glad you mentioned that, because your ministry coordinated the research and the dialogues with the community engagement to specifically focus on programs directed towards aboriginal people who do not meet the criteria as far as not being eligible for employment insurance.

I'm wondering, out of that $66 million, how much of that money will be coming our way to help with aboriginal employment. And what follow-up is the minister doing with this community engagement report that came out last February?

Hon. G. Abbott: As I noted in my previous answer, the dollars are managed by the Ministry of Advanced Education and Labour Market Development. In terms of the detailed questions around that, they should really be furnished to that minister in her estimates.

I'm sure she's very much looking forward to hearing those questions and responding in a much more capable and fulsome way to your important questions than I can here. But the $66 million is British Columbia's share of the LMA funding, so I guess the short answer to your question is: all of it.

G. Coons: Thank you, Minister. I'll follow up on that.

The second realm of questioning I wanted to get into is dealing with urban first nations. Quite often I run into that situation, when I travel throughout the province, where the urban first nations feel a bit of a vacuum in being left out.

There have been research papers out there — one as recently as March 2009 — prepared for the First Nations Centre, National Aboriginal Health Organization. Looking at the horrendous health and housing and chronic concerns of those urban first nations, I'm just wondering what initiatives the minister has for dealing with urban first nations.

[1615]

Hon. G. Abbott: The member asks an important question. I'll do my best to give him a full, yet concise, answer to that important question.

Provincial support for off-reserve urban aboriginals is an important question. Today about 60 percent of first nations people live off reserve. Often their departure from reserve will lead them to larger urban centres like Vancouver and Prince George and Victoria. The issue of how to support and strengthen the lives of off-reserve first nations people is a very important one.

Among other things, we provide support of $720,000 per year to aboriginal friendship centres. The member, I suspect, is probably familiar with aboriginal friendship centres. There are 24 centres across the province. Aboriginal friendship centres tend to be the gathering place for off-reserve aboriginals. With $720,000, we support the work of the aboriginal friendship centres, and I know that the federal government supports them as well.

We are also engaged with the federal government on an urban aboriginal partnership, or strategy. The strategy is being developed between 2007 and 2012. It's a five-year agreement. The projects have been centred in Vancouver and Prince George. We're consistent with the new relationship, attempting to find ways that we can support the work of first nations off reserve.

More broadly, I'd also note that there are a number of programs of general application which provide support to, among others, off-reserve urban aboriginals, although they certainly don't exclude on-reserve aboriginals who may want to work in the programs. One example would
[ Page 1264 ]
be the BladeRunners program, which we referenced earlier in these estimates, which provides an intensive training opportunity in construction for first nations youth.

The public school system, the post-secondary system, health care, various economic development initiatives, housing — all of those are part of what we do for off-reserve urban aboriginals, although these are programs of general application.

[1620]

Also, in terms of urban aboriginals — and these could be on reserve or off reserve — the member will recall the reconciliation agreement with the Musqueam First Nation of a few months ago, which involved the transfer of the University of British Columbia golf course and some adjacent lands to the Musqueam. That is, I guess, a good example of support for generally an urban aboriginal band.

We're doing a lot of work with the Squamish, some of it jointly with the federal government, to try to find additional economic development opportunities for the Squamish or, in the case of the cultural centre in Whistler, the Squamish and Lil'wat First Nations. The member may have had an opportunity to enjoy the outstanding cultural centre that the Squamish and Lil'wat have in downtown Whistler. It's fabulous, and it was well supported by the province.

In the case of the Tsleil-Waututh in, generally speaking, North Vancouver, we're again looking for opportunities for us to build new opportunities for the Tsleil-Waututh, hopefully as part of a treaty negotiation, because there's some advancement there. But whether first nations are in treaty or not, we want to support the work that they're doing and to strengthen the economic development and other opportunities which they may have.

G. Coons: Yes, I've had quite a few friends and acquaintances…. I travel around and talk about it, so thank you for that.

I do want to just touch on something. The minister talked about the high number off reserve. In times like we have now, a lot are moving back to the reserves. I know it's been panned today, about housing, but I do want to just touch on that again.

I believe that the Times Colonist last month talked about it, and the Premier promised action on the terrible living conditions. He said that we know they're overcrowded, unsafe and unhealthy. He pledged immediate action and said: "A newborn aboriginal child — we don't want to have that child wait until we get everything exactly right."

The previous Aboriginal Affairs Minister said that housing on some reserves was beyond deplorable. "It's unhealthy, it's unsafe, it's deplorable, it's unacceptable, and it needs to change." Again, as the minister said, no matter who is responsible, it's unacceptable. There are thousands and thousands of Canadians and thousands in British Columbia who are living in cold, mouldy, overcrowded and dangerous houses.

Both the Premier and the previous minister said that even though the federal government has responsibility for on-reserve housing, the province could and would play a major role. So there's a real change in the last three or four months on housing, and I'm just wondering: what's the difference between the Premier and the ex-minister talking about how they would play a major role to the minister's thoughts right now?

Hon. G. Abbott: I won't repeat all of what I said earlier because, as the member noted, we canvassed the housing issue probably three times now. But I would note again just this. In May 2008 the province and the federal government did sign a tripartite agreement to take on the challenge of housing both on and off reserve. That work continues. I talked earlier about the $50.9 million off-reserve housing projects that are either completed or underway.

The only other thing that I would add to the discussion earlier is that we're looking at training capacity in terms of how to manage stock and remediate stock. We're looking at innovations, and the best example of that was the T'Sou-ke First Nation from Sooke. I had the opportunity to visit them about three months ago and to look at the remarkable work that the T'Sou-ke First Nation is doing in relation to solar energy.

[1625]

They have a very advanced solar power system on reserve that powers their housing on reserve. On sunny days, when the solar panels are soaking up lots of energy, they actually sell power back into the B.C. Hydro grid. I think that's a very good example of utilizing innovation in terms of trying to meet the challenge.

Again, you know, I'm not going to quarrel with the member about the challenge. We agree that there are far too many examples of deplorable housing conditions on reserve, and we are working with our partners, the federal government and First Nations Leadership, to try to move forward on this problem as quickly as we possibly can.

D. Routley: Greetings to the minister and his staff. I have a couple of local questions to my constituency. The first one is related to the Penelakut people. Recently there was a barge left to drift on the shores of Kuper Island, and the Chief of the Penelakut had a great deal of trouble in having the issue of the barge addressed. It's since begun breaking up, and both the federal and provincial governments have yet to step up to help the Penelakut deal with this impending environmental catastrophe. It's an old fuel barge that was left there and abandoned.

I wonder if the minister could tell me what he could do for the Penelakut people in addressing the issue of this derelict barge.
[ Page 1265 ]
 

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for his question. My understanding is that the federal government has been advised by the province of our concerns with the situation which the member outlined in his question. This is without question an issue, given it's on the ocean, of federal jurisdiction, likely involving the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. It may involve the Coast Guard as well. The province, I'm advised, has been alerting the federal government as to its concerns in respect of this matter.

D. Routley: The Penelakut also have a significant issue when it comes to ferry fares. Ferry fares on the Kuper Island ferry run have increased over 100 percent in the past few years. The people there have great difficulty meeting the demand of getting to and from the main Island, where they need to go for shopping, and their children need to go there for school. They also have sporting events they often can't attend because of the costs of the ferry fares.

I realize, of course, that ferries aren't the direct responsibility of the minister. But just to relay a story, one of the elders who I spoke to told me of collecting pop bottles to get back to Kuper Island. She couldn't meet the ferry fare and tried to give the change to the ferry attendant. Eventually the police were called to remove her from the ferry. Someone in the ferry lineup gave her enough money to get back to Kuper Island. She arrived back home but left a large portion of her dignity back at the ferry terminal in Chemainus.

The Chemainus foreshore is the traditional homeland of the Penelakut people. They were moved to Kuper Island to make way for the establishment of the townsite of Chemainus and the mills that were established there.

[1630]

I wonder if there's anything that the ministry and the minister can do to help the Penelakut people with the transportation issues they face. Not only are they a huge social impediment and, I would say, a human rights issue, but they're also a very large obstacle when it comes to economic development.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member is correct that responsibility with respect to ferries and ferry fare issues, and so on, certainly doesn't reside with this ministry. As the member probably knows, it resides with the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. They would be the ones to canvass.

I think the estimates for Transportation have been completed, so what I'll do on behalf of the member is to advise the Minister of Transportation of this concern by the residents of Kuper Island and make sure that she's aware of this concern that the member articulated.

D. Routley: The next couple of questions I have relate to the Halalt people. The Halalt people reside in the area called Westholme, which is between Duncan and Chemainus, neighbouring Crofton.

The Halalt have been struggling to have their rights recognized when it comes to the extraction of water from the Chemainus aquifer. The municipality of North Cowichan is planning several large-volume wells to extract water to accommodate further housing development. The Halalt people have objected to this development and are very frustrated in that their rights have yet to be recognized.

I'm wondering what the minister can do to reassure the Halalt people that, as they request, their hand will be on the tap if there's a move to extract water from their traditional lands.

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for the question. Again, other ministers — in this case, the Minister of Environment — I'm sure could provide a more fulsome answer to the member's question than I can.

I do understand that this has been an important issue for the Halalt people and for the community of Chemainus in respect of the water extraction and water supply. I'm advised that there was an environmental assessment office process around this project and that the first nation was involved in the process. It appears from the member's comments that they disagreed with the decision or outcome of the process, but I understand that they were involved in the EAO consideration of this project.

Again, I'm not certain whether the Ministry of Environment has undertaken its estimates yet, but this would be an appropriate question, I think, for the member, should he wish more information than I've been able to provide from the limited sources we have here on this issue.

D. Routley: Recently, Catalyst Corp. sold the Chemainus River estuary lands to Ducks Unlimited for a price of $3 million. The Halalt people claim to have had a right of first refusal over any sale of those lands, and they're very upset that the lands were sold without notification to them.

[1635]

Does the minister think that that's reasonable? Is there anything that he can offer to reassure them that future disposition of lands within their traditional claim area will not be carried out without their consultation?

Hon. G. Abbott: What I want to say first of all is that I'd welcome further information from the member in respect to that situation. What we understand, with the limited information we have here, is that it appears this was a sale between a private entity, Catalyst, and Ducks Unlimited.

We believe, based on the evidence we have, or the information we have, that there should have been a con-
[ Page 1266 ]
sultation with the first nation. We don't know what, if any, consultation took place. It's difficult to be definitive in any kind of judgment about whether the process that was undertaken was appropriate or was lacking. But I'm glad to look into it further on behalf of the member, if the member feels it's appropriate and if the member could provide us with a little bit more information about the Halalt concerns with respect to how the process was undertaken.

D. Routley: The Halalt also have an issue related to the road to Crofton, which passes through their reserve. There's a 30-kilometre posted speed limit. Children play on that road. A school is located on the road. Heavy traffic from the pulp mill passes in both directions all day long. There's significant concern about safety and also their right to determine the quality of life in their community.

Does the ministry have a position on the jurisdiction of the road through the Halalt reserve, and if so, could the minister relate that to me?

Hon. G. Abbott: I was trying to formulate what I hope will be a useful answer for the member, based on the member's question and the limited information we have in respect of the specific road which he references.

We don't know what the status of the road is. Typically, a road going through reserve lands would be a federal jurisdiction, but that's not always the case. We need to have more precise information about that road to be able to provide a definitive response to the member's question.

[1640]

Whether it is federal jurisdiction or other, clearly there is an interest in traffic safety for the residents of the reserve and for the people who make use of the road.

We're glad to follow up on behalf of the member to try to find out whether there's more that can be done. There are instances, certainly, where there have been traffic safety initiatives undertaken on reserve to try to strengthen the traffic safety. I'm glad to try to work with the member more on this, but we do need a little bit more information with respect to the status of the road to know whether, legally, there is something that the province can do.

D. Routley: My next question is related to the Snuneymuxw people in Nanaimo. They have a 79-acre specific claim underway, and I wonder if the minister can inform me as to the progress of the claim and what he thinks should be done to move it along. It's a great frustration to the Snuneymuxw people.

Hon. G. Abbott: With respect to the Snuneymuxw specific claim, I'm advised that specific claims almost invariably involve a first nation and the federal government, often but not exclusively on issues which occurred prior to British Columbia's entry into the federation. In this case, in this specific claim, the principal actors are the federal government and the Snuneymuxw.

I'm advised, as well, that there is a three-year claims resolution process. We are now about one year into that claims resolution process. If the parties are unsuccessful in resolving the specific claim within the three-year period, it will go to a tribunal for adjudication at that point.

So while British Columbia is not directly a party to this, we're aware of it. As with any other issue where we can be of any assistance in supporting the parties to reach a resolution, we're happy to do that.

[1645]

D. Routley: I have one other inquiry around fire protection and prevention, but it will be taken up by the critic, so I'll leave that with him.

There are a number of issues here where the minister has indicated some follow-up. I think they related specifically to the Halalt well issue; to the sale of the clam beds, the Chemainus estuary lands, to Ducks Unlimited; the road to Crofton. I would like to follow up on those issues and pursue them. Who should I direct my inquiries to, and how long should I expect to be able to take up those issues?

Hon. G. Abbott: What we generally do in respect of issues raised at estimates is if the member believes that he has some further information which you might add to the records supplemental to the information that's been provided to me and my staff during this estimates process, if you could provide me with a letter with that information in it, that would be useful and a reminder of the issues that you had canvassed.

If there is no letter forthcoming, what we do, typically, with issues raised in the estimates process is…. We will, in the weeks ahead, try to get as much evidence, information, understanding as we can of the issues that the member has raised and then will respond in a letter, as promptly as we can, back to the member, providing our best understanding of the issues that the member has raised.

B. Simpson: My appreciation to the minister and his staff for fielding the questions. As the minister well knows, a lot of these questions are community-oriented. One of the things about relationships with first nations is that MLAs need the opportunity to stand up and speak on behalf of their first nations communities. I do appreciate the time that the minister has taken.

We have a short period of time left. One more MLA will be coming in at six and will be asking some questions from up north. Other than that, I will also be asking some questions on behalf of the MLA for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, who can't be here. It goes back a little
[ Page 1267 ]
 bit to urban aboriginal issues, but it's in the context of how the minister's ministry works.

I wanted to go back, though, and close off the discussion we were having on the new relationship with respect to the reconciliation act. I guess my sense is that the first nations believe that that ended up as a dead end. The minister has suggested that under the new relationship we have to find other mechanisms. Without putting words in the minister's mouth, I think the government realizes that if they don't have a partner to come to the dance, there isn't really a dance there. We have to move on to other things.

The minister indicated that the new relationship still has some positive momentum to it, that it's a vital document and a source of inspiration. With the new relationship there is also the transformative change accord and the Métis change accord. I note that when I went on the government's website, the ministry's website, there hasn't been a reporting out, that I can see, of the transformative change accord. The last update on the website was June 2007, and there was no summer-fall update on the new relationship document.

I'm curious as to whether something has replaced that. I'm aware of a document that's part of the service plan: New Relationships with Aboriginal People and Communities in B.C. I wonder if the minister can just clarify for me if that's going to be a replacement for what was used by the previous minister, who did regular updates in the form of a newsletter, who did updates on the new relationship, and the website did give updates on transformative change.

Is this document, New Relationships with Aboriginal People and Communities in B.C., the document that will replace all of those other reports?

Hon. G. Abbott: Just for the benefit of the member, the most recent document is New Relationships with Aboriginal People and Communities in B.C. from April 2008.

[1650]

I'm advised that in approximately one month we will be seeing the next increment of the transformative change accord. I'm also advised that there has been updating of the website. I don't know whether there's anything since the member did research in respect of the question he posed, but there may be some new materials on the website as well.

B. Simpson: Thank you for that clarification. One of the things that this government unfortunately has a tendency to do is move on and not move on in terms of reporting and closing things off, etc. There is a feel, when you're on the website, that the new relationship reporting out, particularly since the previous minister did the glossy updates and so on — that maybe the government has moved on from that as well.

The minister couched — and I think it's in order to sort of buttress support for the new relationship — and referenced Chief Kelly about maybe it was a step forward, etc. I think that's unfair to the general consensus that it wasn't a step forward.

My challenge, I guess, to the minister is…. The minister has reflected back and said that the new relationship elements haven't seriously been challenged by first nations. I would say that that's a reasonably fair comment with one exception — that nobody can really define what the new relationship elements mean in practice. I think that's a fundamental problem.

The reconciliation act has exacerbated that. In the absence of the reconciliation act, it begs the question of: what does the new relationship mean when it talks about reconciliation, when it talks about resource-sharing and when it talks about shared decision-making, bridging the gap on the social gap, etc.?

With respect to the minister being new to the file, let's take one example. What is the minister's understanding of the government's understanding of shared decision-making under the new relationship if there's no reconciliation act? What does shared decision-making mean?

Hon. G. Abbott: Thank you to the member for the question. First of all, I think the suggestion that somehow interest or enthusiasm has flagged around the new relationship and the contents of it and the transformative change accord, and so on, is both unfair and inaccurate. I think what we have are complex challenges here in British Columbia.

I don't think that our challenges are necessarily unique, but there are elements in the history of British Columbia, notably the relatively few number of treaties that we have, historically, in British Columbia, which make the situation more challenging. And there are other parts of British Columbia history which I think make the relationship a more challenging one.

That having been said, I think, whether it's my predecessors in this ministry or the Premier, that there is much interest in this file and a continuing focus on moving this file along. I guess the way to underscore that pronounced concern and interest in this file is that British Columbia has been a leader over the past decade in terms of moving the agenda forward.

So whether it's the transformative change accord or the tripartite health plan or the work that was done on the new relationship agreement or the work done on the recognition and reconciliation discussion paper, all of these are evidence of a government that is keen to think about these very challenging problems in new and innovative ways.

I can't agree with the member's assessment about any flagging interest in this file. It's simply not the case from my perspective. The member does, though, I think rightly raise what is a very important question, and that
[ Page 1268 ]
is around expressions like "shared decision-making on the land base" and what that might mean. The member uses that as his question here.

[1655]

Because we are tilling new ground in respect of shared decision-making on the land base, we are going to be giving expression — hopefully, through either community agreements, regional agreements or other agreements — to what, precisely, shared decision-making on the land base means.

We don't have a long history of shared decision-making on the land base in British Columbia. Arguably, we have seen, through a series of court cases and through much discussion between government and first nations about what appropriately constitutes consultation and accommodation on the land base, lots of interest in that.

I think our interest in and our understanding of shared decision-making on the land base has been enhanced by a lot of the work that has been done on communication and accommodation on the land base. But there are still lots of questions that need to be answered. The member may have some suggestions on that. But it gets extraordinarily complex in a hurry.

Based on experience I had back in the days of Sustainable Resource Management and the development of comprehensive land use plans for the central coast and the north coast and for many other areas in British Columbia, I think part of shared decision-making on the land base means intensive work between the province, its agencies and first nations about what appropriate land use decisions are on the land base, and hopefully developing consensus around land use plans to guide what areas should be forestry, what areas should be mining, where is oil and gas exploration appropriate, where are tourism values the most important, where are spiritual or cultural values the most important.

These are, I think, an important element in shared decision-making on the land base. I think also there is some agreement at the strategic level ensuring that if we have a land use agreement where there is consensus with first nations about appropriate land uses, decisions at the strategic level are consistent with that.

As you start to descend from the strategic level down into the operational level, that is where I think we need to do a lot more work through either local, community or regional agreements. We need to do more work to give expression to what shared decision-making on the land base really means.

Does it mean that the first nation should sign off every septic tank application permit that goes through? I would think not. If that was the case, we and the first nations would be inundated by literally hundreds of thousands or millions of these lower-level operational decisions.

The key will be trying to strike an appropriate balance of where the decision-making level appropriately is and trying to structure agreements that are consistent with our understanding of that. There is no simple definitional answer to the member's question. It is something that will evolve as agreements evolve and will gain expression through those agreements.

I think it was believed at one point that we could get expression of issues like shared decision-making on the land base through statute — i.e., an R-and-R act. But now we need to find appropriate expression for it in community or regional agreements.

B. Simpson: To the minister's point of my unfair and inaccurate depiction of the new relationship, I was echoing what I heard at the summit, at the assembly and at the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs — that there is a concern in the absence of the reconciliation act and that dead end.

[1700]

Now you've got to go back to the new relationship and see if you really understand it, and a lot of people think that it has become something, unfortunately, that is laughable. The minister actually gets to a point, and that point is, for example, his description of shared decision-making. I would argue that that doesn't resolve for anyone what shared decision-making means. It's: "Maybe it looks like this."

When the minister talks about septic tanks, the first nations will tell you they're already inundated with all kinds of referral processes, with no resources to address the referral process — in part, because of the expectations established under the new relationship that has filtered out through all of the line agencies.

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

The minister talks strategically — for example, about land use planning and doing designations and all of that stuff. I think that was called the CORE process in the 1990s. The first nations opted not to participate in such a process because they felt it undermined their rights and title claims as a first principle. If you were to put lines on a map and you hadn't resolved rights and title, they couldn't play. So I don't think that that addresses it.

Let's get down to some of the nuts and bolts. What the first nations understood was going to occur with shared relationship was changes to regulatory authority, changes in the actual regulations in the various ministries, engineered either out of the Premier's office…. Quite frankly, the reconciliation act and the new relationship came out of the Premier's office, not MARR.

Regulations were going to be established that actually clearly articulated at an operational level what shared decision-making meant — when you got a cutting permit in forestry, for example, or when you got a mining proposal in the Ministry of Energy and Mines.

So I have a twofold question. One is: what regulatory changes have occurred or are in the works with respect
[ Page 1269 ]
to shared decision-making — because that's how first nations understand it and want it to happen?

Second: where is the budget to enable first nations to actually participate at two levels — first, at the discussion level of how you operationalize shared decision-making; and second, at the referral level so they can actually engage in referral processes without it undermining the limited resources that they have?

My apologies to the minister, but because of time constraint, I'm kind of throwing three things together.

[1705]

Hon. G. Abbott: Thank you to the member for the question. To begin…. Not to be quarrelsome, but the member indicated that there really hadn't been too much in the way of land use plans since the CORE process in the 1990s. There has been, of course, much work done through the 2000s in respect of land use plans, and we have a central coast plan and northern coastal plans in which first nations were very integral and highly, highly involved parties.

I had the honour of leading some of those discussions as Minister of Sustainable Resource Management back in 2004-2005. The first nations were very much involved in the development of those plans, and ultimately, when the plans won consensus approval, they were signatories and supporters to the plans. I do think that there is a lot of value in those plans, and I do think that in many ways they are a kind of best expression of shared decision-making — to have consensus land use plans.

The member asked, in terms of regulatory changes, what had been done. Again, I can say, I guess most importantly, to the member: we have a couple of pilot projects around the management of referrals, which appear to have some value and success. We're always looking for ways that we can improve the management of regulatory processes, preferably in concert with first nations.

I think the shared decision-making discussion goes much further than that. In the discussions that we're currently having with the Tsilhqot'in, with the Haida and with the northern coastal first nations, we are focusing very much on the aim of providing a much more fulsome and meaningful involvement of first nations in decision-making processes.

Again, not to disparage the importance of septic tank permits — they are important — but we have literally tens of thousands of those, and to have multiple parties adjudicating those kinds of issues is probably not the best use of anyone's time. What we hope to do through the engagements that we have with some first nations is to try to identify a better model for giving expression to the goal of shared decision-making. I think we are reasonably optimistic at this point that we can make some breakthroughs in that area.

When we get together next spring, I'm sure, for days and days of estimates debate, I'm really looking forward to a much more fulsome opportunity for us to engage here next year. We can talk in those discussions, I hope, of some of the success and learnings that we will have from the work that we're currently very intensively involved with.

I don't dispute the member's point that we haven't got a precise definition of it yet. I don't believe it's possible to get a precise definition of it yet. I think it's something that we need to work through on an agreement-by-agreement basis.

I guess the other point is that shared decision-making doesn't mean the same thing for every first nation. There's some variation in terms of what it means to them as well. That maybe points back to the value of working on these things on a community and regional basis.

[1710]

Hopefully, by the time we meet again to enjoy yet another estimates process, we can have a few more of those answers about what it could mean, but this is something that's going to evolve into the future. There's no question about it.

B. Simpson: To the minister's point on land use plans, I didn't mean to suggest there haven't been ones following that, but that was an attempt in the 1990s to do what the minister articulated as the strategic objective. At that time first nations just didn't trust the process enough to engage. They have engaged in some areas of the province but not all, as the minister well knows. So I wasn't disparaging work that had been done subsequent to that.

However, one of the things that the minister talks about — and it's the other aspect of new relationship on revenue-sharing as well — is that both shared decision-making…. The minister's own point is…. The whole point that I'm hearing out there is: what does it mean? It means different things to different entities.

But it definitely raised the bar, and I think that's where the difficulty is. If it's not going to be done through an omnibus piece of legislation, then there's certainly a higher level of expectation that if anything happens….

I'm not quite sure why the minister goes to septic tank regulations because, really, it sort of undermines what we're talking about. We're talking about large land-base decisions. We're out salvaging mountain pine beetle areas like there's no tomorrow, many of which are clearly on first nations territory, and it has them very concerned. They're not engaged in the bioenergy discussions at a level that many of them are concerned about, etc.

This isn't septic tank regulations. This is big-ticket stuff, as they see what they traditionally, I guess, call the talk-and-log or the "talk and extinguish natural resource capacity" is still continuing under the guise of a new relationship that said: "You're going to be at the table with shared decision-making. You're going to be at the table with revenue-sharing."
[ Page 1270 ]
 

It's a misaligned or a mismatched expectation that I see at the heart of some of the issues that have now been set aflame because of the reconciliation act and all that that's done.

Let's go to the other case, then, and revenue-sharing. As I look at the ministry's budget…. I know you've got your chief financial officer here, and we do want to make use of his brains here. I will come to that as quickly as I can here. But there's a decline. There's an increase for the September update, but there's a decline in the next year.

You know, if you look at a time of fiscal restraint, where the most vulnerable, arguably, become the most impacted if you're not careful, and if you look at the report we just got from the Treaty Commission about getting on with the job of treaties, it's hard to not look at the ministry's budget and say that it looks like there's a misalignment going on here.

In the budget itself, is there a line for revenue-sharing as a direct flow of cash from the province of British Columbia? That's one. Secondly, what is it that the minister understands when the government, through the Premier's office or in documentation, says that one of the key tenets of the new relationship is revenue-sharing? How does the minister understand the nature of that statement?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'll give the member a relatively short answer, and "relative" is always sort of relative when I'm giving the answers. It may seem like a very long answer, but in fact it will be a relatively short answer.

The whole revenue-sharing issue is a very important one, and I'm appreciative of the member raising it. I think what we are seeing in the province today are some good examples of what revenue-sharing could be either between a government and a first nation or between an economic activity on the land base and a first nation. I want to give the member a couple of examples of that, but I'm not pretending that this is the universe yet. This, I believe, is an example of how it could be, as opposed to the way it is right now.

I think what I want to do as a minister is work with the team we have at MARR and the teams we have in Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and other places in government and think about how we build on some of the best practices. How do we build on some of the best case examples that we have seen of engagement with first nations and then make first nations a part of the beneficial impacts of activity on a land base?

[1715]

The member asked: do we have any provision in our budget for revenue-sharing? The answer is no. The best example, though, of revenue-sharing is the dollars that are resident — and David can correct me if I happen to be wrong here, but as I understand it — in the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. That's the dollars for the revenue-sharing that go along to the Treaty 8 first nations for oil and gas revenues in the north. So there is a provision for that.

I know that you want to correct me, but you can't correct me until I'm done. Then we have to go back and retroactively correct it, but that's always fun for the opposition critic to do that.

That's one example of the dollars that are in the provincial ministry budget for oil and gas revenue-sharing. But there are other very good examples. One that has enormously impressed me — and I just had an opportunity to visit late last week — was the Toba Inlet and the work that is being undertaken by Plutonic Power on the Toba Inlet, a run-of-the-river project, hydroelectric with almost complete involvement of the Klahoose First Nation, on whose traditional territory this has occurred.

The example is an excellent one. Plutonic Power engaged the Klahoose. The Klahoose looked forward to the opportunity to be involved. They have an equity stake in the project. They are going to have a revenue stream that — pardon the pun — flows from the project. So that's terrific. It's going to sustain their community and sustain the first nation through the years ahead.

As importantly — and I think in some respects most importantly — the Klahoose have been engaged as contractors on the site. They operate the cafeteria, and they have built a partnership with a college to do a training program for first nations — young people, principally, but any who wanted to get cooking training and other training. They've really engaged in the fullest in terms of them benefiting from a development in their traditional territory.

Not all of the lessons of Klahoose and Plutonic will be available everywhere else in the province, but it's a great case example of how a new economic activity on the land base is having a very direct and positive impact on a first nation on whose traditional territory the development is occurring.

I know New Afton mines have done an engagement with first nations and, again, have worked through to an agreement in the area of forests. There's a provision in the Maa-nulth treaty which involves revenue-sharing for the Maa-nulth First Nations from forestry activities on the land base.

All of these, I think, are great examples of what we can do. My job and our job is to try to identify how we take what we've learned in terms of the relationship between government, industry and first nations, try to translate that into best practices, advice and support and direction on how we can continue to move along to such agreements that really will help to make first nations a much more vital part of the economic fabric of British Columbia.

B. Simpson: I'm reminded of one estimates I was in where the minister's staff was quite gentle with him,
[ Page 1271 ]
because I was in one estimates where the minister was actually getting pulled by the coattails to sit back down again. So I applaud your staff's forbearance and look forward to whatever the correction is.

[1720]

With respect to the minister's comments, though, again, it's one of these expectation issues. So what I've heard, for example…. Again, it's interesting that it's not in the line-item budget, and it's not in forests, etc. But first nations indicate that the government has direct access to resource-sharing dollars that it collects — stumpage fees, resource rents, royalties, referral fees, etc. There's a whole bunch there.

There's a fairly strong sense in first nations communities that when the government talks about revenue-sharing or resource-sharing, it collects a lot of money from the land base that is within the traditional territories of first nations, but it is probably the least likely to share in a lot of that from a public policy perspective that goes across all of the first nations.

Now you do have…. I understand that we can get into the debate on forest and range agreements and forest and range opportunities and all of that stuff, but as the minister should know, those were taken to court, and the court didn't like them either, because they were formula-based. The first nations don't like them because the amount of forest or resources available are so minuscule that they often just go to the largest corporate entity and hand over the keys and get a little bit of cash flow from it.

From a resource-sharing perspective, it's kind of a specific question. Is there any dialogue anywhere about the government — not third parties? The reason for not third parties is what I hear, and I'm sure the minister must hear it as well. That really makes individual bands susceptible to whatever the third party is capable of getting away with. Sometimes you get a good deal. Sometimes they don't get such a good deal.

I had discussions with the Douglas band, for example, in their IPP venture. They're not super happy about what went on, for a variety of reasons, in that IPP thing. Although, you know, I think that they're split even internally on that. But it makes them susceptible if it's one-offs and third parties that are doing it. What they're looking for is the government, from a public policy perspective, to say: "Here are the resource rents in their varied forms that we get from the land base."

The first nations have a capacity issue. They have a social gap that the government has a stated objective to address. Is there any dialogue or any intention of a public policy direction that we would take to then have the government share resources directly and explicitly across the board with all first nations, based on territorial rights?

Hon. G. Abbott: The short answer to your question is: yes, we are engaged in discussions around sharing benefits.

To the member's point, hon. Chair, about third parties not always offering such a good deal, I think that you'd find, occasionally, first nations who would suggest that governments over the last 150 years haven't always offered such good deals either.

So I do think it's a conversation that certainly involves government and first nations, but you know, for the resource proponents or the resource developers, they should be part of the discussion as well.

[1725]

Government does provide some economic benefits to first nations, but I think that the industrial or commercial enterprises on the land need to be part of the discussion, too, and may well, at times, be the appropriate people to provide those benefits.

But let me begin by the humbling process of correcting the record from the last question. We have in our budget — it's not in the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources budget — the economic benefits agreement for the Treaty 8 first nations, including the Blueberry, which is a Treaty 8 nation but has its own separate EBA, or economic benefit agreement.

We have $3.4 million per year for the Treaty 8 nations that are in the one grouping and $2 million a year for the Blueberry who are in their own grouping on economic benefit agreements. That is a flow-through, through our ministry budget.

We also have, as part of the Maa-nulth treaty, over the next three years $15 million in revenue-sharing flowing to the Maa-nulth First Nations which will be matched by the feds.

[The bells were rung.]

I guess we have to go to vote centrally, but I'll be guided by the Chair on what we should do here.

The Chair: Yeah, we'll have to have a recess because we've been called down to division. We'll recess the Committee A until following division.

The committee recessed from 5:27 p.m. to 5:39 p.m.

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

B. Simpson: To the minister: it's just logistically a problem for us to continue tomorrow. I appreciate the minister's offer, so I'm going to ask some specific questions to get some things on the record and then turn it over to two other members who have quick questions. But I do look forward to that longer session that the minister looks forward to after the Olympics in the next budget cycle.

Some explicit ones. The point that I'm getting to — and the minister knows that I have a predisposition to this — is that I believe we need to work cooperatively on
[ Page 1272 ]
this file. I believe that the reconciliation act left a bit of trouble in the wake of that not proceeding. My sense is that there's some healing that needs to be done within first nations communities. That's why I'm not wanting to do big estimates debates this time — because I think there's some healing that has to occur there.

Again, I would put on the record that we remain interested in using one of the capacities of the Legislative Assembly, and that's a legislative committee on aboriginal relations, to take a good, hard look at new relationship.

[1740]

The "new relationship" term has been floating around. A treaty task force of the Socred government used "new relationship" in it, and that was back in '99. But we do need to figure out how to advance this, get into some of the more deliberate approaches to resource-sharing, etc., and take a look at what's out there and what's possible. So that offer still remains.

One of the questions that we all have about how this ministry operates — I'm not sure if the minister still has the question — is: how does the ministry influence other entities? I just want to give two cases in point.

Under this ministry's April 2008 document, the education section talks about getting first nations youth involved in educational opportunities and so on. There's an explicit reference to $12 million toward aboriginal service plans and 11 public post-secondary institutions. I'm being told that that money is now in question. Aboriginal service plans may not be funded. Aboriginal coordinators may not be funded. There's a great deal of insecurity around that. That's one example.

The other example is that the targeted graduation rates for first nations in secondary school has been clawed back from 60 percent to 53 percent. So with those as examples…. And environment, for example — there's a lot of concern about the environmental review process that needs to change, needs to respect first nations, etc.

As a general question, what is the role of MARR in taking a look at what…? How do you actually take a look at what other entities are doing so that you don't become at cross-purposes — as they apply the lens of fiscal restraint, they don't start clawing back some of the targets and objectives that are within this ministry and then cause this ministry to fail to meet its objectives?

In particular, within the context of the budget, I note that the vote appropriation for Aboriginal Relations is being reduced by 16 percent. The corporate services are being reduced as well, so under fiscal restraint, the ministry's core capacity to do the integration and to make sure that things are happening as they should is also being diminished.

Maybe the minister can explain how things don't fall through the cracks as we apply the lens of fiscal restraint and some of the most vulnerable people in the province get hurt by that.

Hon. G. Abbott: The general answer to the member's question is that the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation plays a coordinating role across government in relation to issues that relate to first nations and aboriginal people in the province.

That coordinating role is undertaken at a variety of levels. I have regular meetings with cabinet colleagues in relation to matters for which they may have carriage but which have important first nations elements involved in them. So both within cabinet in a formal sense and outside of cabinet in a formal sense, there is much work that is either jointly done or led by another ministry but supported by MARR.

[1745]

There is at the deputy minister level a deputy ministers committee that engages collaboratively on issues around aboriginal relations, so that's a critical part of this. At the assistant deputy minister level there are working-level discussions that occur with other ministries to ensure that there's cohesion and focus to the work that government is doing.

On pretty much any strategic engagement around the province where there's a discussion or a negotiation or a strategic engagement underway — whether MARR or another ministry leads it or an agency leads it — invariably, we are involved in providing advice and support to try to ensure a favourable outcome.

A couple of recent examples of this kind of support was the work that has been undertaken to resolve issues related to the creation of the Williston dam decades ago, but never any reconciliation of the damages that occurred to the first nations as a consequence of that. We have supported the strategic engagement by B.C. Hydro to deal with that.

Happily, we have seen agreements in the past several months now between the Tsay Keh Dene and B.C. Hydro and the government of British Columbia, and between the Kwadacha First Nation and B.C. Hydro and the province of British Columbia. Those are the kinds of examples of where MARR can step up and help to reach agreements which we hope will be beneficial to all parties.

B. Simpson: The answer is not quite satisfactory in the sense that I gave a couple of explicit examples of where there seems to be a regression in stated objectives by other ministries that impact first nations — the Ministry of Advanced Education and the Ministry of Education, etc.

One of the things in terms of the next estimates that I will give the minister advance notice of is that I'll be looking at every other ministry with respect to their historical targets and objectives for first nations. My understanding of this ministry is to make sure that other ministries don't drop the ball when it comes to first nations. I think that will be a substantive piece of what we do next.
[ Page 1273 ]
 

With respect to treaty, I'm going to ask the minister for a briefing on treaties. I think that they are and we are — and everybody would agree — at a very sensitive time. I was happy to hear that there will be a provincial response to the common table. There are a lot of angry people out there who, elections and all sorts of things notwithstanding, are angry that they did not get a timely response to the hard work that they did, so I was heartened to hear that that may be forthcoming.

I do note and would need the explanation on a 28 percent reduction in the vote appropriation for treaties when we're supposed to be ramping treaties up, but I'll do that as a separate briefing.

I do need to ask a couple of quick questions about urban aboriginal issues on behalf of the MLA for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. Maybe I can do this as a common one, because the minister has already talked about urban aboriginals and how 60 percent of first nations in B.C. fall into that category.

The specific question has to do with the new executive directors council that's come together of all of the aboriginal associations and organizations. I've met with them. They would like a meeting with the minister, and the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant is asking that question as well.

Their intent is to actually form a body that can begin to engage government directly so that it's not all of the independent organizations that are addressing it. These are all the executive directors. They're formally constituted.

The simple question in that case is: will the minister meet with them and find mechanisms to assist them to be engaged in a more deliberate way with what's going on? They want to be engaged, for example, on implications of the Olympics and the Vancouver east side and what that does on treaty negotiations, etc.

[1750]

Then the second question, a very specific question. I'll admit I don't know the answer to the question, but it has to do with the Ministry of Children and Families and whether or not there are plans to implement the recommendations of the Pivol, I think, Legal Society's Broken Promises report. If that's too specific for the minister, we can sort of take it on notice and find an answer later.

Interjection.

B. Simpson: Pivot. Sorry, I'm reading it here. The Pivot Legal Society's Broken Promises report. There's an "l" on here.

Again, this is a group that represents a very large cross-section, and they want to be engaged in a different way. Would the minister commit to at least meet with this group and explore their issues with respect to how we manage urban aboriginal issues in the province?

Hon. G. Abbott: In respect of the executive directors' group, I would be delighted to meet with them. We haven't received, to my knowledge, a meeting request from them, but when such a request is tendered, I would be delighted to meet with them. I'm sure that they have some exceptional advice to provide me, and I'd be glad to meet with them.

In terms of the Pivot Legal Society and their report. It's not something that we have dealt with, nor do we have any record of a request to meet with us. But you know, I'd be glad to review their report. I'm not sure whether it's a report that pertains to the activities of the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, but I'm always glad to learn from these reports. To my knowledge, we haven't dealt with that one.

V. Huntington: I'll have to figure out how one participates in this exercise as an independent, instead of always going through the critic for the opposition, but I do appreciate the times here.

Firstly, I'd like to thank the minister for his offer of a briefing on the implementation aspects of the Tsawwassen treaty. I do look forward to that. There are some very major impacts beginning to occur, and I think it'll help me understand how the treaty is unfolding at this rate.

But my question for the moment has to do with issues that were of great concern to members of the treaty advisory committees throughout the province. When I was on the Lower Mainland TAC, we were very concerned with the number of interim agreements that were being made with the different bands.

I'd like to ask the minister. Firstly, I'm assuming that the new relationship agreements are new language — are they? — for the interim agreements. If not, perhaps you could let me know what we are calling them now.

Secondly, one of the great concerns was that as treaties progressed, the provincial policies were developed, both within the department and at the treaty table, but at the same time, interim agreements were being reached. My concern and others' was always: what policies was the ministry or other departments basing these agreements on? And did they bear any relationship to the policies that the government had when they were negotiating the treaties?

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for her very important question. In terms of the question around what were formerly termed interim agreements, I think the words have changed somewhat. I'll try to summarize, I hope adequately, what now is meant by incremental or other treaty arrangements.

[1755]

There is a commitment on the part of government to try to work with first nations to identify and support economic opportunities, social opportunities, that can
[ Page 1274 ]
occur to improve the situation for first nations, regardless of whether they're in the treaty process or not. I believe, the ministry believes and government believes that treaties can still be one of the best ways that we achieve reconciliation between government and a first nation.

But we also want to be respectful of the fact that some first nations — and indeed, virtually all the first nations from the southern Interior, where I'm an MLA…. Very few, if any, are engaged in any way in the treaty process, and we want to work with them regardless. I think the best way to sort of express this is to say that we're trying to expand the number of tools that we have in the kit, in hopes that we can utilize those tools to achieve the end of narrowing the social and economic gaps between first nations communities and other communities in the province.

Some of those tools relate to the treaty side of the equation. Some are consistent with treaties but can occur with or without a treaty discussion. There are treaty-related measures where we identify an area of the province — it might be a piece of Crown forest, for example — where the first nations express a particular interest or express the view that it has spiritual or other strategic importance to the bands. So it might be set aside in a treaty-related measure for future reconciliation with the first nation.

In terms of actual transfers, those are now done through an instrument that we generally call incremental treaty agreements. The word "interim" is replaced by "incremental." I'm not surprised to hear that TACs may at times have concerns about incremental treaty agreements. I wasn't initially persuaded of the value of incremental treaty agreements either.

I must say that over time I have gone 180 on this point and now am persuaded that, in fact, incremental treaty agreements can be a very powerful tool for change — versus my earlier concern, when I wasn't minister here, that possibly you take away some of the incentive for finalizing treaties by having incremental agreements that see certain pieces of Crown land or other resources transferred in advance of a final treaty with the first nation. I believe now that in fact the incremental treaty agreements can be a way in which to demonstrate to a first nation the opportunities that can be produced by agreement with the province and the federal government.

The Tla-o-qui-aht, for example, up near Tofino, have an interest in a substantial piece of Crown land up there. We've come a long ways towards an incremental treaty agreement with them for that land. When it's transferred, they will be able to utilize that for commercial purposes. It's a particularly beautiful piece of land, and it has some great opportunities on it.

That will be one of the ways that the Tla-o-qui-aht can benefit not only from the future treaty with them, where much more substantial pieces of Crown land will become part of the treaty settlement lands, but it'll also be a way that they can, in advance of that final treaty, start to see some benefits to their communities and opportunities for job creation, for investment, for economic development, for training and education — all of the things which are so enormously important to the social and economic outcomes of a community.

You know, I'm now much persuaded that this can be a very powerful tool, so I'm very supportive of incremental treaty agreements. Hopefully others, including treaty advisory committees, would be similarly disposed to look at them in those ways. Beyond those sorts of directly treaty-related pieces, we have things like a reconciliation agreement.

[1800]

The Musqueam is a good example of a reconciliation agreement, where particular pieces, I guess they'd be best described as Crown lands — the UBC golf course and some adjacent properties — were transferred as part of a reconciliation agreement with the Musqueam. Those are not directly treaty-related, but they're certainly consistent with a future treaty, hopefully, between the Musqueam and the governments of British Columbia and Canada.

Strategic engagement agreements, forest and range agreements. The opposition critic earlier — I think, rightly — identified some of the shortcomings of FRAs. But the thing about FRAs is that it provided for the first time for probably 150 first nations in the province…. For some of them it was the first agreement that they had ever made with the province of British Columbia, so it was a bit of a breakthrough in that sense.

[J. McIntyre in the chair.]

I think that as we move forward in the future those agreements can certainly be improved and strengthened, but they're an opportunity to build, at least in a small way, some economic opportunity on the Crown land base for first nations. So we want to work at this from a number of directions and build those opportunities.

Again, treaties are such a hugely important part of reconciliation, but you know, until we get to that point where a given first nation is prepared to move on treaties, we want to find other tools to narrow the gap and generate new opportunities for those first nations communities.

V. Huntington: One of my concerns specifically was with the agreements that weren't necessarily treaty-related. Those I can understand as a viable way of moving toward the agreement itself. My issue really is: do these other agreements, the reconciliation agreements, the strategic engagement agreements — I'm not sure what that is — and the forest…?
[ Page 1275 ]
 

Do all of these other agreements fall into line, at least in the majority, with the departmental treaty policies — i.e., they aren't made out there in left field with no relationship to the treaty policies themselves?

And lest I take up too much time, the other concern I have is whether there's any consideration within the ministry to opening up these agreements somewhat to some form of public consultation. Because unlike treaties, which have at least a small amount of consultation and information out there publicly, these agreements have none and often come as a complete surprise to neighbouring communities.

[1805]

Hon. G. Abbott: I'll try to add a little bit more to my last answer and hopefully provide an overall coherent response to your important question, Member.

Again, we do view treaties as the highest form of reconciliation agreement. Treaties bring to bear a whole range of elements around land uses, additions to treaty settlement lands, services, governance and so on. There are many, many pieces to a treaty agreement. They're complex, as the member well knows from the Tsawwassen treaty. They're not going to be possible everywhere, and we're hoping for some breakthroughs in terms of more treaties and getting some momentum behind this, but it has been painfully slow — the progress in that area.

What we hope to do as we see treaties such as Sliammon, In-SHUCK-ch, Yale, and Yekooche all getting relatively close to completion…. We want to see other areas in the province where the first nations have said: "No, we're not going to talk about those issues. We believe that it will infringe on rights and title for us to proceed down that treaty path."

In the absence of discussion in that area, what we hope to do is have agreements. I appreciate the member's point about there being all kinds of different names and stuff, but basically they're just dealing with different aspects. It might be a land use. It might be a governance issue. It might be a services issue.

When I was at UBCM I met with a band that is situated immediately next to Lillooet, and there's a piece of ground there that has spiritual significance to them. They have aspirations for it. That's a kind of very small example of what we could do in terms of an agreement that will be fulfilling for them from a spiritual perspective, but also potentially an economic opportunity perspective in that they're interested in having a cultural centre there.

Those are the kinds of things that we're always prepared to engage and discuss with first nations. We would not do something through an agreement of that character that was inconsistent with ultimately having a treaty arrangement, so I think that all of these things are consistent with and potentially incremental towards achieving treaty when at some distant point those are contemplated by the first nation in question.

But we do want to have tangible ways that we can reach out and say: "Yeah. You know, we can help you with this piece of Crown land or with this service or with this agreement. We can help you realize some of the opportunity and potential which you believe is there." So that's important.

On the member's question with respect to public consultation on the non-treaty agreements, I think it is, first of all, a fair point. There is not typically the level of consultation around those sorts of subsidiary agreements that there would be around a treaty agreement, and I suspect that there are occasions when we could probably improve the consultative process in respect of those kinds of agreements.

If the member has any ideas on how that might be undertaken, I'd certainly welcome them. We do try to consult with respect to them, but I think that the member's point is a fair one — that those processes could probably be improved. I'm always very pleased to hear the thoughts of members with respect to how they could be improved.

R. Austin: I just have a couple of quick questions, noting the time. We're almost at the end of the day here.

My questions relate to the Nisga'a Nation and the Nisga'a treaty. I understand in listening to the opposition critic earlier that your department offered to do a briefing around treaties, so I would really like to be a part of that.

[1810]

I'd also like to be part of a briefing around the Nisga'a treaty itself because this is the first time that I've ever had to represent a band who have managed to get out of the yoke of the Indian Act and actually have self-governance. It's a new thing for me. It's a very big treaty, and I'd like to have a briefing on it, particularly those parts of the treaty that are ongoing.

That's a good segue into my first question. There's a part of the treaty that states: "Every five years, or at other intervals if the parties agree, the parties will negotiate and attempt to reach agreement on a fiscal financing agreement by which funding will be provided to the Nisga'a Nation to enable the provision of agreed-upon public programs and services to Nisga'a citizens," etc.

My question is: where are we at right now in terms of negotiating that fiscal financing agreement? We're basically at the ten-year part of the Nisga'a treaty, so I'm assuming that there's already been one renegotiation, and we're at the second one. I'd like to know where we're at with that, and how is it going?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm gratified to hear of the member's interest in a briefing on Nisga'a, and I certainly would be very pleased to welcome him to participate in that discussion as well, so we'll welcome that.

The member's question with respect to the five-year fiscal financing arrangements is a very good one.
[ Page 1276 ]

The completion of those discussions was delayed as a consequence of the federal government having some difficulty securing a mandate to complete the discussions. I am advised that now the parties do come equipped with appropriate mandates. The parties are in substantive discussions at this point, and the parties believe that they can conclude the renewal of this agreement by December 31, 2009.

R. Austin: I'm very glad to hear that. That's wonderful.

My second question relates to telecommunications. As I'm sure the minister is aware, the Nisga'a have done quite an incredible job by setting up a company that's basically set up high-speed Internet throughout the valley, from all four villages, from Kincolith all the way to the capital, to New Aiyansh. The difficulty, though, is in getting fibre optic cable up Highway 113 to connect to the system that they've set up.

I'm not sure if this was part of the Nisga'a treaty that the province would enable them or help them, but I do know, having been here for four years, that certainly one of the goals of this government in previous throne speeches was to try and get broadband right throughout the province.

My question to the minister is: is there anything going on right now to try and enable the good work the Nisga'a telecommunications company, enTel, has done to try and connect with the rest of British Columbia, so they can actually have e-learning and all the other things? Of course, the opportunities in the valley are very limited in the sense that they're far away from the mainstream economy. So having high-speed Internet capacity is very important to them.

Hon. G. Abbott: The issue of extension of broadband is, as the member rightly notes, an important issue for both first nations and other communities through British Columbia. I'm pleased to advise the member that, to date, some 125 first nations across the province have been connected to the network. That leaves about 75 left to go, and that's important to reach out and extend broadband right across the province.

[1815]

We are working with the supplier on completing those final connections. I'm pleased to note, as well, that the Nisga'a are represented on our advisory committee in respect of the extension of broadband. I'd be glad to commit, given the time constraints we have, to following up with further information for the member in respect of when those Nisga'a communities might specifically expect broadband.

The Chair: Member, noting the hour.

R. Austin: Yes, just this last one.

That's great, wonderful. I look forward to finding out when the date of that is, because they've been waiting for quite some time.

My last question, and it's a quick one, relates to highway responsibilities vis-à-vis the province. Of course, as part of the treaty, Highway 113, the Nisga'a Highway, was extended all the way through to Kincolith. It's a wonderful road, especially at the far end of it where it's all brand-new. But further down, in the older part that's sort of around Kalum Lake just south of Rosswood, is a section of road which is, frankly, very dangerous.

They've been to the Ministry of Transportation, and so have I. We'd like to know whether there's any part of the treaty that has an obligation to try and maintain other parts of the Nisga'a Highway that are not in the core lands but approach it, because there's this section that is, quite frankly, quite dangerous.

Maybe the ministry can speak to the Ministry of Transportation just to find out exactly where on the priority list this piece of highway is in terms of being renewed. It has heaves so big that when you drive over it, even at the speed limit, your car is ready to turn over. It's really dangerous. I'm just wondering if the minister could comment on that.

Hon. G. Abbott: To the member's question, there is nothing in the treaty with respect to the reconstruction of portions of the Nisga'a Highway. I am, however, glad to pass on to the Minister of Transportation your concerns and the Nisga'a concern with respect to the very large potholes and road heaves that are characteristic, apparently, of the lower reaches of the Nisga'a Highway. I'm glad to do that.

I await your instruction, Madam Chair. Am I to move the motion now?

The Chair: The motion is moved. Hearing no other questions and noting the hour, shall Vote 11 pass?

Vote 11: ministry operations, $65,150,000 — approved.

Hon. G. Abbott: Madam Chair, I move that the committee rise and report completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:18 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2009: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN 1499-2175