2011 Legislative Session: Third 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)

Tuesday, May 3, 2011

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 20, Number 12

[ Page 6529 ]

TUESDAY, MAY 3, 2011

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

J. Yap: All members of the House know of the good work of Rotary International, a worldwide organization of 1.3 million Rotarians, many in Canada, who do good work for humanity, promoting peace and harmony and health and the welfare of people.

We have a number of visiting Rotarians from the North Delta Rotary Club. With us today are Sean Hogan, who is the district governor-elect for district 5050 of Rotary International; Neil Inglis; Lornell Ridley; Bob Marshall; Teresa Marshall; Doug Denyer; Bob Attfield; and Elgin Duke.

They're here as the guides for a group study exchange team from Ireland. Rotarian David Falkingham is the GSE team leader, and he's with four team members: Janet Millar, Julie McKee, Patricia Campbell and Tracy Rosborough. This team has been touring British Columbia and Washington State, visiting Rotary clubs and learning about life here in British Columbia and Canada. In a week they return home to Ireland with some great memories, I'm sure, of Rotary life and life here in British Columbia and Canada.

Would the House please join me on giving them a warm welcome on their visit to the Legislature today.

L. Popham: Please join me in welcoming two dear, dear friends of mine. They're two women who I have the utmost respect for. They're women farmers in Saanich, and they run a business called Saanich Organics, which distributes healthy, certified organic food throughout our region. They've been doing it for years. They make their living this way, and I'm hoping maybe they can supply our restaurant here. Please make them welcome.

D. Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce 53 students from grade 5 who are visiting here from Pacific Academy, one of the best schools in Canada, in my riding of Surrey-Tynehead. Joining them are their teachers, Mr. Rick Bath and Grant Wirtz, as well as 34 parents and volunteers who have taken time out of their busy schedule. Would the House please make them very welcome.

H. Bains: In the gallery we have Mr. Sudesh Jain and his wife Sushma Jain, all the way from New Delhi, and their daughter Anu Mittal and her husband, Kapil Mittal, along with their two beautiful daughters. Please help me welcome them to this House.

Hon. M. Polak: Today joining us in the gallery we have a friend and constituent of mine, Mr. Tim Lounsbury, along with his grandson Adam Wojak. Would the House please make them welcome.

D. Routley: Can the members help me introduce a young man who has been a neighbour of mine for over 20 years — in fact, longer than his 20 or so years, because I've known his parents much longer than that. He's a student visiting us, very interested in politics, very balanced and progressive view, as reflected by his endorsement of the official opposition. Let's all make Nick Wade welcome to the House.

L. Reid: I have the pleasure of introducing nine new Legislative Assembly summer tour guides. They will be with us throughout the summer — please rise — and taking two weeks of training and offering educational tours to many school groups and international tourists who visit the Parliament Buildings during the spring and summer.

These post-secondary students bring with them the ability to provide tours in English, French, Spanish, German, Mandarin, Taiwanese, Japanese and Punjabi. I would like you to formally welcome them: Jasleen Aujla, Tamara Chwist, Nozomi Fukaura, Jean Lawson, Sally Lee, Mary McInnes, Maxim Legault-Mayrand, Esher Madhur and Genevieve Ryan. Would the House please make them very welcome.

I. Black: I need to ask the indulgence of the member for Cowichan Valley, because I'm about to introduce one of his constituents. But I do have a very good excuse, Member, because he happens to be my father.

[1340]

He joined us for lunch today in the Legislature and is pleased to report that the quality of the lemon meringue pie is precisely where it needs to be. Would the House please join me in welcoming my father, Stewart Black, to the House.

Hon. K. Falcon: I'd like to echo the welcome that was made earlier by the member for Surrey-Tynehead, who welcomed the grade 5 students from Pacific Academy. It so happens that a couple of the parents happen to be people I know very well. I would like to welcome Nancy and Rob Martin, who are here with their son Brad on this trip. I would hope that they have a wonderful visit, and I appreciate the opportunity to host them here to watch us in question period.

Welcome.

J. Slater: It is my pleasure to introduce a friend and colleague of mine, Chad Eliason, who is also a councillor for the great city of Salmon Arm. Would the House make him very welcome.
[ Page 6530 ]

D. Hayer: Let me also include my welcome to the members of Rotary Club of North Delta. Dr. Duke used to be my dad's doctor. I've known him for a long time, so I'm happy to see him here with all the Rotary club as well as the Rotarians from Ireland.

Also, I have my niece here, Jasleen Aujla, who will be working as a tour guide. She's a student at UVic, and she's involved in the hockey team. I would like to welcome her. Would the House please make her very welcome.

Congratulations on getting the job working as a tour guide. They definitely need a tour guide who can also explain in the Punjabi language.

R. Hawes: Many of us on this side of the House are anxious to go in to Saanich to buy some organic goods, but unfortunately, the member for Saanich South didn't tell us the name of the guests she has. We're hoping here on this side — hoping against hope — that she'll give the names, please, so we know where to go.

L. Popham: Thank you for making me look so professional in front of my two friends. [Laughter.] Their names are Robin Tunnicliffe and Heather Stretch.

Hon. M. de Jong: Rest assured, we're all on our way.

May 1 to 7 is Drinking Water Week in British Columbia, and to raise awareness, we have two people visiting us in the precincts today. Daisy Foster is the CEO of the B.C. Water and Waste Association. She is joined by Jim Mattison, board member with the B.C. Water and Waste Association. I hope all members of the House will make both of them feel most welcome.

Presentation of Revised Estimates

estimates of sums required
for the service of the province

Hon. K. Falcon presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2012, presented to the Legislative Assembly May 3, 2011, and a supplement to the estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2012, presented to the Legislative Assembly May 3, 2011, recommending the same to the Legislative Assembly.

Hon. K. Falcon: I move that the said message and the revised estimates accompanying the same be referred to the Committee of Supply in replacement of the estimates that were referred to the committee on February 15, 2011.

Motion approved.

Tabling Documents

Hon. K. Falcon: I have the pleasure to rise and retable the Budget and Fiscal Plan 2011/12–2013/14, which fulfils the requirements of section 7 of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. The Budget and Fiscal Plan has been revised to reflect the changes to executive council since February 15 but is otherwise unchanged.

[1345]

Mr. Speaker, I also retable, on behalf of the ministers responsible, the service plans required under the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act.

These documents are presented in two binders. The first binder contains service plans for the Office of the Premier and 17 ministries. The accountabilities in these service plans have been reorganized to reflect the changes to executive council since February 15.

The second binder contains service plans for 27 Crown corporations and agencies and includes a list of organizations that are exempt from the service plan requirements under section 13 of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. It also identifies organizations that are receiving or losing exempt status, together with the reasons for these changes, and four organizations that have been added to the government reporting entity by regulation, with an explanation for these additions.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

INTERIM LEADERSHIP OF NDP

S. Simpson: It's been an eventful political year in British Columbia, with both parties experiencing unanticipated leadership changes. As we all know, such change has a significant impact on the workings of a political party and a caucus. In the case of the government side, Premier Campbell remained in office until the selection of Ms. Clark. On the opposition side, our leader stepped down, creating a vacancy while we waited for the ultimate selection of the member for Vancouver-Kingsway.

Filling that vacuum was a challenge that needed to be addressed, and we survived it well, thanks to the member for New Westminster, who stepped up as interim leader when called upon by our caucus and party. I want to thank her for the stability and leadership she provided, offered up with class, humour, commitment and hard work over the past few months.

As the member for New Westminster likes to say, she was minding the gap, and she did it well. She demonstrated a calm determination in how she executed her responsibilities and, in doing so, built a renewed solidarity in our caucus.

All members have an appreciation of the challenges of leadership. We understand the pressures and the variety of demands put on our leaders, all happening under the
[ Page 6531 ]
spotlight of the media and the public. The member for New Westminster delivered with flying colours during her months at the forefront of the NDP.

As caucus chair, I had the opportunity to work every day with her as we prepared for our new leader and continued to perform our duties as opposition. The member for New Westminster did a remarkable job bringing us through this time in such great shape. She pushed the government hard on issues, always with integrity and a determined respect that advanced our views with clarity and insight, and she worked inside our caucus with a single-minded focus on building our team.

The member for New Westminster has demonstrated the best traits of elected office and leadership, stepping up to the challenge and working to bring people together for a common cause. I know I speak for all members of the official opposition and, I trust, for all members of the House in thanking her for demonstrating the conduct and demeanour that reflects on all of us as elected representatives.

PROTECTION OF DRINKING WATER SUPPLY

J. Slater: As was mentioned, May 1 to 7 is proclaimed Drinking Water Week in B.C. to raise awareness of the value in our water. Our proclamation this week is supported by the B.C. Waste and Water Association, whose mandate is to help safeguard public health and the environment on water matters by providing education, training and knowledge-sharing.

I would like to acknowledge again the guests Daisy Foster and Jim Mattison for all their hard work and their organization in British Columbia, as we have some of the best drinking water in Canada.

The quality of our province's drinking water continuously improves over the years, and we should be proud of that. In the last ten years we have made significant progress in improving the quality and standards of drinking water. In 2003 we enacted the Drinking Water Protection Act to protect water from source to tap and to safeguard the health of British Columbians. This was built on the action plan for safe drinking water, created in 2002 to focus on preventing and treating contamination as well as identifying risks in communities.

[1350]

Examples of investments in drinking water systems include $20 million through Towns for Tomorrow for more than 150 projects, including 61 water and sewer infrastructure projects, and $80 million for 87 projects through the B.C. community water improvement program. Of the projects approved to date through the Building Canada communities component, 80 of them were for water, sewer and wastewater infrastructure, with an investment of more than $100 million.

The B.C. Water and Waste Association has been providing operator training in B.C. for 50 years. We now have more certified operators — more than 1,300 certified since 2002 — and on-line courses designed to help train small-system operators.

I invite you to raise your glass of water, take a sip and acknowledge the great taste of B.C. waters. Cheers.

ELIZABETH FRY SOCIETY

K. Corrigan: This week is National Elizabeth Fry Society Week. The Canadian society was founded in 1939 and named after the British pioneer who was a crusader for prison reform for women.

In Canada the society provides support for women across the spectrum of justice system involvement. Importantly, they focus on the children of those women. The goal of the society is to enhance public awareness and education regarding the circumstances of victimized and criminalized women involved in the criminal justice system. It's important work, supporting perhaps the most marginalized women in society.

My first contact with the good work of the Elizabeth Fry Society came in the 1980s, when I was a member of the Lakeside Advisory Board, a community board which liaised with women prisoners at the Lakeside prison in Burnaby.

Elizabeth Fry members were tireless and dedicated and non-judgmental advocates for a group of women who often were in many ways broken and discarded by society. In my community of Burnaby, among other things, the E. Fry supports girls in custody at the Burnaby Youth Custody Centre by ensuring they understand their rights and teaching them self-advocacy skills. They also provide recreational and educational opportunities to youth and sometimes are just there to listen.

National Elizabeth Fry Week always ends on Mother's Day, because the majority of women who are criminalized and in prison are mothers. Most of them were the sole supporters of their families at the time they were incarcerated. As Elizabeth Fry Societies point out, when mothers are sentenced to prison, their children are sentenced to separation.

I hope everyone will take this opportunity to make themselves familiar with the good work that the society does, consider making a donation and, finally, consider the society's aim to encourage the development of and support for community-based alternatives to costly incarceration.

ART EXCHANGE BETWEEN
'NAMGIS FIRST NATION AND GERMANY

L. Reid: Life is not just about moments that leave you breathless but rather the moments that take your breath away. One of these moments was the opening of the Power of Giving art exchange in Alert Bay, British
[ Page 6532 ]
Columbia. Art is the exchange of ideas and values, exactly what transpired when the 'Namgis First Nation and the people of Dresden, Germany, decided to share their most precious artifacts, when an extremely large museum exchanged their treasures with the U'mista Cultural Centre on Cormorant Island.

When items representing the baroque period in history came to British Columbia and the world's finest mask collection went 11,000 kilometres across the globe to Dresden, Germany, it was a journey of respect for us and for those that come after. "The world cannot be safe for democracy unless it is safe for diversity." These words were spoken by renowned First Nations artist Roy Henry Vickers at the 2011 DIVERSEcity Awards. It was such a pleasure to hear him speak.

We agree that art is about telling stories, about showcasing cultures, and we both know that diversity needs to be celebrated each and every day. I don't believe there's a better example of showcasing cultures today than the exchange entitled Power of Giving.

Special thanks to Dr. Martin Roth, who invited me to participate; Consul General Sitz; and the many wonderful German visitors who have fallen in love with Cormorant Island. You will always be welcome. I would encourage all British Columbians to take in the exhibit on Cormorant Island, which will run through to August 28, 2011.

MINERALS NORTH CONFERENCE
IN STEWART

D. Donaldson: We will rock you, Mr. Speaker. No, that's not a preview of the question period coming up today. "We will rock you" was the slogan of this year's Minerals North Conference held in Stewart April 27 to 29.

I attended and was able to welcome on behalf of all MLAs in this Legislature mining leaders from across the country, exploration companies, suppliers, and local government and First Nations representatives. The mood was upbeat due to some of the best commodity prices on record. This makes for a very promising exploration season this year and an improved outlook for mining in the northwest.

[1355]

The significance of the region from a mineral perspective to the province and even nationally was noted by a number of the expert speakers. The enthusiasm was tempered somewhat by a concern expressed by many at the conference over a lack of resources in the permitting, monitoring, assessment and First Nations consultation sections of ministries that deal with mining. As was pointed out, this could hinder the ability of the sector to react quickly and efficiently to the bump in commodity prices.

Aside from industry, there was also positive news from Geoscience B.C., which will invest in a $3 million data-gathering exploration program in the northwest this year. This is the type of work from the publicly funded body that has spurred private sector investments when conducted in other parts of the province. Geoscience B.C. does valuable work, as was recognized by the bipartisan Finance Committee of this Legislature that recommended its activities be further funded after 2011.

"We will rock you" really did rock, and that was in large part due to the enormous effort of Stewart. Mayor Angela Brand Danuser, her staff, volunteers and the people of that small community put on an incredible show. The sun shone for three days, and the community with Canada's most northerly ice-free deep-sea port created the atmosphere for an extremely successful Minerals North.

Congratulations to all involved.

SERPENTINE ENHANCEMENT SOCIETY

D. Hayer: There is an organization in my constituency whose only goal is to make the world a better place. They do it quietly and without conflict and with little help from anyone other than the members and volunteers. In fact, every member of the Serpentine Enhancement Society is a volunteer, from its president, Glenn Wright, to directors and members Dr. Tom Goodman, Barry Child, Alan Dobby, Dave Woods, Carol Wright, Frank Marshalock, Bruce Easton, Chris Hamming, and Ebb and Julia Budgell.

The goal of these fine people is to return the valuable salmon runs to the Serpentine River, the leisurely stream that winds its way throughout one of the most urban places in Canada, my city of Surrey.

On the last Earth Day the Serpentine Enhancement Society increased the population of the stream by releasing 20,000 juvenile salmon raised in the Tynehead Hatchery, located in Tynehead Park in my riding. These society members raised salmon for the future. They raised awareness of the importance of fish and about the environment, with our young people, through ongoing interaction with elementary schools and children throughout the city of Surrey with all schools.

There are hundreds of volunteers who diligently contribute their time to keep the valuable hatchery, wildlife habitat enhancement and education programs ongoing. Some of them volunteer hundreds of hours every year. This excellent organization is holding an open house and fundraiser on Sunday, May 8. I urge everyone in the House and everyone in Surrey to attend this very important event and ask all members in the House to thank and congratulate every member and all the volunteers of the Serpentine Enhancement Society for the important work they do for our environment, for our future.
[ Page 6533 ]

Oral Questions

CLEANING SERVICES AT
HEALTH CARE FACILITIES

A. Dix: My question, as promised, is to the Minister of Health. I wanted to say to the Minister of Health that I don't think…. I don't believe the fact that he's surrounded by four former Health Ministers and a highly regarded doctor is any indication of a lack of confidence by the Premier.

My question is a very simple one. As he knows, problems with hospital cleaning and hospital cleanliness caused the Vancouver Island Health Authority to take away seven cleaning contracts from Compass. Now, those contracts were awarded to another contractor, Marquise, and then what did Compass do? They bought the company. They bought Marquise. This absurd situation is being allowed to continue. When will the Minister of Health put patients first and stop this failed privatization agenda on Vancouver Island?

[1400]

Hon. M. de Jong: To the opposition leader in this our first exchange: I appreciate his concern for my well-being. I'd observe, looking at who's sitting next to him, that old House Leaders never die. They just fade into health care.

To the question at hand, though, the member will know — and I'm sure all members understand — the importance that the government places on ensuring that the health facilities that British Columbia's families visit are maintained to the highest possible standards of cleanliness. That has been the policy. It continues to be the policy.

Those standards will be rigidly enforced, and happily, we are in a position, given the work that has been done by some of those previous ministers in the government, that we can actually assess that in ways that very few jurisdictions can and in ways that were impossible just ten years ago in B.C.

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

A. Dix: Dramatic increases in hospital-borne infections. Repeated violations of WorkSafe rules. That's the record. The government in 2008 nonetheless renewed without bid this contract.

The fact of the matter is that hospital cleanliness is a major problem in British Columbia, and everybody knows it but the government. Their auditors are the only ones in the world who believe there's no link between cleanliness and the spread of infection.

Now, this case shows the absurdity of the government's policy. They took action against Compass, and Compass is going to get all of those contracts. When will the minister take action? When will he take action to protect patients on Vancouver Island and deal with this privatization agenda?

Hon. M. de Jong: What I do find somewhat curious is that the member relies upon data or purports to rely upon data that exists, whereby only ten years ago, none of that data would exist. The previous administration showed no interest in actually measuring on an ongoing basis what was taking place within our health care facilities. That has not been the approach of this government or the health authorities.

I might also say this. In making the comments he has in this chamber, what the member really does is disparage the work of hard-working men and women who day in, day out attend at health care facilities in British Columbia and keep those facilities clean to the very best of their ability.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

A. Dix: The disrespect with which this government has treated health care workers has been established everywhere in Canada including at the Supreme Court. So for the minister to suggest that a government that has cut the level of cleaning is concerned about workers is an insult, hon. Speaker. It is an insult.

Why don't they take action now? They even acknowledge that their scheme didn't work on Vancouver Island. They even had to intervene to deal with Compass, and now Compass is frustrating that process by buying the company and getting the contracts back.

Why doesn't he take advantage now before this process is gone through and repatriate those contracts so that people on Vancouver Island can ensure that they have clean hospitals to go to in the future instead of the government's agenda, which apparently is to cut costs in that one area of health care where surely no one believes costs should be cut. When is he going to take action and reverse this privatization agenda?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, there in his final comment reveals the true frustration. The member remains opposed and objects to any of the partnerships that draw on the dynamism that exists within the private sector to ensure….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Take your seat for a second. Sit down.

Members.

Continue, Minister.

[1405]
[ Page 6534 ]

Hon. M. de Jong: At a time when the health care budget in the span of just ten years has essentially doubled from just over $9 billion to almost $18 billion, we are going to do two things as a government. We are going to ensure that British Columbia families access health care facilities that are kept to the highest standards possible in terms of cleanliness, and we are going to continue to look for innovative ways to partner with the energy that exists in the private sector of British Columbia to help deliver those services where it is appropriate to do so.

M. Farnworth: What British Columbians want to see in their hospitals is cleanliness, not outbreaks of C. difficile. That's what British Columbians want to see in their hospitals in B.C.

Nanaimo General Hospital is synonymous with infection control problems in the province of British Columbia. In 2008 a C. difficile outbreak resulted in more than 90 cases of illness and three deaths. Those infection rates have continued up to the present day. Last year alone, there were 11 deaths due to C. difficile in the same region.

My question is: given the fact that VIHA is once again looking at changing cleaning contracts in the province of British Columbia, why doesn't the province do the right thing and bring that contract back in-house and get cleanliness standards back to where British Columbians expect them to be?

Hon. M. de Jong: In-house, out-house, out-of-house — the objective is to have hospitals that are maintained to the highest possible standard. If the members can't step beyond this ideological connection they have with a particular way of delivering service, then that's their problem. But the government is going to continue to look for ways to ensure that we are capitalizing on innovation and at the same time ensuring that B.C. families can access hospitals and health care facilities secure in the knowledge that they are being maintained to the highest possible standards of cleanliness.

M. Farnworth: What's been ideological is this government's approach to health care and their ideological disrespect not only to health care workers but to what the people of this province expect, which is cleanliness in hospitals.

Last spring 11 people died during a C. difficile outbreak which finally ended in August. It's due in part to shoddy housekeeping taking place, not meeting the standards maintained in contracts. VIHA is considering changing the contract in Nanaimo General Hospital once again.

So will the minister ensure the right thing and do the right thing, which is bring those housekeeping standards back in-house and ensure that people have confidence once again in the housekeeping taking place in British Columbia hospitals?

Hon. M. de Jong: First of all, anytime there is a death in whatever circumstances, it is tragic. But in raising this issue — and the member as critic, the members of the opposition will appropriately raise them — he should do his homework and be fair and be clear about what some of the assigned causes for those deaths were and how the germ was brought into the hospital. That's all I'll say about that.

But the member went on to talk about the standards. He's a former Health Minister. Mr. Speaker, what was different when that member was a Health Minister, than any of the people on this side, is there were no standards. It is that absence…. It is the fact that as government and when he was minister there were no standards that, I think, lies at the root of the frustration.

[1410]

There are standards today, and we are going to work with the health authorities to ensure that those standards are maintained at hospitals right across British Columbia.

SERVICES FOR
DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED PERSONS

N. Simons: Last week in this House the minister responsible for Community Living B.C. said that no adult with a developmental disability was forced to move out of their group home. Perhaps the minister could tell that to Renata Cole of Terrace, whose daughter and three other residents of a home were required to move because of the budget pressures put on by this government to Community Living B.C.

Can the minister please explain to that family how their daughter was forced to move?

Hon. H. Bloy: To the member across the way, in my short time in this ministry I have been assured by Rick Mowles, the CEO of Community Living British Columbia, that no one has ever been moved without their prior approval, without being part of the planning process.

In my meetings with the British Columbia Association for Community Living, Faith Bodnar and some of the families associated with them talked about the great work that Community Living British Columbia does. In fact, they were recognized as the leader across Canada in the work that Community Living B.C. does.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Simons: Maybe the minister's responsibility now is to look objectively at the programs his government provides instead of listening without question to everything he's been told by the people who are propping
[ Page 6535 ]
him up. These are families that are being impacted by the minister's cuts. These are families that are being told contradictions to reality. Despite what the minister said last week, we've had group home closures, forced moves. We've had program cuts, budget cuts, and now we have a minister who's in denial.

There's a person in British Columbia who waits by the door. After 20 years of going to a day program, he's no longer funded. He puts his coat on, and he waits by the door for his lift. If that's not a program cut, I don't know what is.

What is this minister going to do to get to the truth of the issue in his ministry and actually address the needs of families who have a member with a developmental disability?

Hon. H. Bloy: I want to reiterate to the member across the way that group homes are not a choice. Group homes have not been closed. Every individual has been asked if they want to move out. Not every person wants to live in a group home.

You know, this is not about the budget; this is about a plan which is best for individuals. There are lots of people that live in our communities. They work in our community, they have disabilities, they study in our community. We have athletes that are training, living in our community. These are about choice, and these choices are made by individuals without any question of being forced to move.

M. Karagianis: I just heard the minister say that government offers a plan that is best for individuals. Well, I'd like the minister to tell that to Kirsten Eikenstein. She has been caring for her daughter Corrine for the past 19 years here in greater Victoria.

Corrine has cerebral palsy, is unable to use her hands and is 100 percent dependent on all aspects of care. Now, Corrine was receiving 12 hours of care a week, but this B.C. Liberal government cut that. Now Corrine gets two hours respite a week, and when she turns 18 and finishes high school, that will be cut.

So I'd like to ask the minister: do you think it's okay for people like Corrine to be cut off of services entirely when they turn 18 years of age?

Hon. H. Bloy: I can assure the members across the way that Community Living British Columbia is reviewing members and…. What's the word I'm looking for? They…. I'm sorry.

[1415]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. H. Bloy: Community Living B.C. reviews each client that comes into the system. Clients with special needs are reviewed from about the age of 15 so that they're prepared. They have a plan ready for that individual when they come into Community Living British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: I'm actually quite shocked that the government thinks that zero support is a plan for any child aging out of school. But maybe the minister can defend the numbers to Janet Gann. She's been the primary caregiver for her disabled son for the past 19 years, despite her own health issues.

Janet's son has been doing a job training program in Burnaby and is part of the Special Olympics skating team. Community inclusion is very paramount to her son's mental health. Yet, once Janet's son completes high school, he will no longer receive any supports — none of the supports necessary to be part of his community.

Janet wants to know from this minister why her son should have to pay for the B.C. Liberal government funding squeeze for this ministry.

Hon. H. Bloy: Community Living British Columbia has not cut its budget. It has increased by $13 million over the last year, and it continues to work with innovative approaches to help all individuals.

You know, we had a report out last week from BC-CLAG. I've read that report. I'm reviewing it, and I look to further talking with my staff about that report.

S. Simpson: This minister and the B.C. Liberals are failing people with developmental disabilities in British Columbia. That's the reality, particularly for people who are living in group homes. So 33 closures, and young people moving from Children and Families to CLBC are finding that there is no service available for them when they get there. That's the reality we're facing.

This minister talks about the assessments that are done. Well, let's talk about that. This assessment is done by the Guide to Support Allocation. That's what CLBC uses. Let me read you one clause out of this flawed report: "Staff are to focus on current disability-related needs as outlined within the plan, rather than past or anticipated future need."

My question to the minister: does he think it makes any sense that with a person with a developmental disability, when you do their assessment, you ignore their history, and you ignore their potential future condition? Is that his idea of an assessment?

Hon. H. Bloy: Our first priority as a government and through Community Living British Columbia remains the individuals and the families that we support. There
[ Page 6536 ]
have been no budget cuts. I want to reiterate that. There's been a $13 million increase.

Community Living British Columbia remains committed to serving our clients with innovative support and services. We want to reach out to each client that we have within the system. I'm proud of the work that Community Living staff and their 3,200 contract providers provide to these people across all of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: Let's talk about those providers. This minister talks about the providers. Well, most of them are members of the B.C. Association for Community Living. This minister talked about Faith Bodnar, their executive director. So what has she said about the performance of this government? "We know that service redesign is not an answer to addressing the funds needed for those who are waiting for service…. It is short-sighted, poor and harmful excuse for fiscal planning…and…completely unsustainable." That's what the community thinks about this government's plan.

Hon. Speaker, the plan has failed. The reality is this: 600 people a year, new people coming into the system, and no money for them.

Will the minister go to his friend, the Finance Minister, and get him to give a few of that $2½ billion of cushion to Community Living B.C. so the developmentally disabled don't have to pay for your fiscal mismanagement?

[1420]

Hon. H. Bloy: I want to reassure, to the members opposite, that our first priority is always the individual and their families. I can tell you that Community Living B.C. has not had a cut in budget. It's had an increase of $13 million. I've met with the community living association of British Columbia in the discussions that I've had.

They're so proud of the work that CLBC does in British Columbia. They recognize them as a leader is what they told me in a meeting that I had with them and some of their family members. I look forward to meeting with them again in the future. But they were pleased with the work that we were doing. They considered Community Living British Columbia a leader in providing services for individuals with developmental disabilities.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON B.C. FERRIES
CANCELLATION OF PREPAID PASSES

G. Coons: B.C. Ferries unilaterally changed the rules for prepaid Coast Cards and seized well over a million dollars from thousands of B.C. families who bought the cards expecting the ferry corporation to honour them. The issue is serious enough that there's a threat of a class action lawsuit.

Instead of forcing British Columbians to take a government-owned corporation to court, will the Minister of Transportation solve this today by making B.C. Ferries honour the cards or give the money back?

Hon B. Lekstrom: This issue has obviously come to the forefront, and we've heard about it. I know the important part of this — and I know the member will agree, or I think he would — is that the ferries commissioner has recognized that this is a concern, as well, and has also said that he is going to investigate this, look into it, put a report together and get back to us. I'm looking forward to those findings, as I'm sure the member is and all British Columbians.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

G. Coons: It has come to the ferries commissioner's table, and he's acknowledged that he can't do anything about it. He can make recommendations, but nobody has to follow those. This is obviously a B.C. Liberals–sanctioned ripoff of ferry users and families.

The results of a poll released in March showed 87 percent of the province wants this government to step in and force B.C. Ferries to honour the deal they made with customers and either pay back the money they took or honour the cards. So far, the only message this Liberal government is sending to families is that they're out of luck.

Once again, to the Transportation Minister: will this government put families first and give back the money for those who bought the cards in good faith?

Hon B. Lekstrom: As I said in my previous answer to the member, the independent ferries commissioner is looking into this. I'm looking forward to the results of his findings, and at that time we'll look into it.

But what I do find interesting is how righteous the member believes he is. Let's just point out — and this will be an uncomfortable fact….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon B. Lekstrom: Between 1991 and 1999 there was a 70 percent fare increase through B.C. Ferries when your government held office. I don't know how you can be so righteous, Member. It doesn't work.

K. Corrigan: Boy, I sure would love it if the people on the other side of this aisle would get into this millennium, let alone this decade. In 2007 New Democrats introduced legislation to remove an expiry date from gift cards. Under pressure, this B.C. Liberal government eventually passed a watered-down piece of legislation
[ Page 6537 ]
with a $1.2-million-wide loophole that B.C. Ferries has exploited.

If the Minister of Transportation won't stand up for British Columbians, will the Solicitor General step in and force B.C. Ferries to either honour the prepaid cards or pay back the customers?

Hon B. Lekstrom: I do understand why the member would not want to go back to the 1990s. No British Columbians do.

[1425]

We actually, obviously, recognize — as does the independent ferries commissioner — that this is an issue. He has made a commitment that he is going to look into it, review this issue. I'm looking forward to the results — as, I'm sure, the member is, and the member that asked the question. I'm looking forward to the results of that, and we will see what happens.

B.C. FERRIES SERVICE MODEL

C. Trevena: Mr. Speaker, 70 percent of British Columbians reject the way this government privatized our ferries, and they want the government to return them to our public hands. To the Minister of Transportation: does he support the model for B.C. Ferries as set down in the Coastal Ferry Act?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: It's interesting to note, when you look at customer satisfaction, that it's at an all-time high today. I don't hear issues regarding the service. It was clear, obviously, when the price increase under PT3 came out, it was an issue. The people raised their concerns. Whether it be a 4 percent or an 8.23 percent increase, it obviously is a concern. I share that concern.

I know the commissioner today is hearing from the people of British Columbia about what their ideas are, what they would think is an acceptable increase. When they talk about that, the commissioner will then take that information, put together his final report and report back to British Columbians.

I'm looking forward to that. We have a world-class ferry system, one that provides an incredible level of service to the people it serves. Can it get better? Everything we do in our day-to-day lives can get better, Member, and I'm going to work hard as your Minister of Transportation to ensure that that happens.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. Trevena: I actually asked the minister whether he supports the model for B.C. Ferries under the Coastal Ferry Act, and I'm assuming his long-winded answer about the ridiculous increases in fares means that yes, he does. But I would just like to explore it a little more, assuming that the minister really does agree with this.

The minister had a one-on-one meeting with Comox-Strathcona regional district director Jim Abram, and Mr. Abram wrote that the minister supports having the ferries under highways and that the minister's only challenge is convincing cabinet that the experiment with the B.C. Ferry Services has failed and that it's time to fix it.

So I would like to know what the minister thinks. Should our ferries be part of our highways system or not?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I did have a good meeting with Jim, who's a long-time friend. I got to know Jim when I was the mayor of Dawson Creek and even before that when I was a councillor. Jim actually had relayed his thoughts, saying it should be back under. I said: "That's one interesting point." I said: "I'm prepared to look at anything." [Laughter.]

It's obviously humorous for the members across. I'm glad you're happy today. Quebec must be a highlight for you, I'm guessing.

What we can tell the members…. Obviously, when I look at service levels, when I look at customer satisfaction levels…. Is the model working? The model is working, or those levels wouldn't be as high as they are today. Are increases a concern? Increases are always a concern in our day-to-day lives, whether we're talking ferry fares or anything else.

I do want to remind the member — and this is something I'm sure the other side has forgotten — that between 1991 and 1999, there was a reason for a 70 percent increase in the ferry rates during that time. For you to stand there and laugh and shrug it off and hope the public forgets that, it doesn't work. The reality is that we have a world-class system. We have invested in new boats, in new docks; we continue to invest. B.C. Ferries continues to invest in that, Member, and we are going to ensure that we continue to have the best ferry system in the world.

[End of question period.]

Motions Without Notice

APPOINTMENT OF
ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER

J. Horgan: By leave, I move, seconded by the member for Fort Langley–Aldergrove electoral district, that Dawn Black, member for New Westminster electoral district, be appointed Assistant Deputy Speaker for this session of the Legislative Assembly.

Motion approved.

[1430]

M. Mungall: I rise to present a petition.
[ Page 6538 ]

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

M. Mungall: I have a petition here from 544 residents of the Creston Valley regarding Urmston Creek. They're looking for the provincial government to cancel the conditional water licence for industrial bottle sales on that creek and also to conduct an environmental assessment of this community watershed prior to the issuance of any future large volume water licences.

Tabling Documents

Hon. B. Penner: I have the honour to present the following reports: the final report of the 2010 British Columbia Judges Compensation Commission and the final report of the 2010 British Columbia Judicial Justices of the Peace Compensation Commission.

I'm also obliged to make some observations about the reports, concerning the compensation of provincial court judges and judicial justices. In particular, under section 6(1) of the Judicial Compensation Act…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. B. Penner: …when these reports are tabled.... I'm obliged to advise the assembly that pursuant to section 6(3) of the act, if the assembly does not resolve to reject any recommendations contained in the reports within the timelines established by the act, then the judges and judicial justices will receive the salaries and benefits as recommended in the respective reports.

I wish to further advise members that the government is duly considering the reports at this time.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: In this House we will be doing second reading of Bill 4, intituled the Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) Initiative Vote and Referendum Act; and in section A, in the Douglas Fir Committee Room, we will be doing the estimates of the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 4 — HARMONIZED SALES TAX (HST)
INITIATIVE VOTE AND REFERENDUM ACT

Hon. B. Penner: I move that Bill 4, the Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) Initiative Vote and Referendum Act, be read now a second time.

This act follows through on the government's commitment to resolve the question of the harmonized sales tax more quickly and efficiently. As members will already know, the government has ordered a referendum on the HST to be held under the Referendum Act. That referendum will take place beginning next month, with ballots being mailed to all registered voters starting the week of June 13.

Voters will have a number of weeks to receive their ballots and consider their votes before returning them to Elections B.C. I pause here to note that those ballots must be received back by Elections B.C. not later than 4:30 p.m. on July 22. That doesn't mean putting them in the mail on that day. That means they must be put in the mail sufficiently in advance so that they're received by Elections B.C. by July 22. Final results should be known in early August.

Using a mail-in ballot means a substantial cost savings compared to an in-person initiative vote, which is what would have been required under the Recall and Initiative Act. The cost of the mail-in ballot is estimated at about $12 million, compared to the $30 million it would have cost to have an in-person initiative vote.

Also, under the Referendum Act the threshold is a simple majority, unlike the higher threshold that is required for an initiative vote. This follows through on government's commitment last fall to abide by the wishes of a simple majority of British Columbians as expressed through a referendum.

The bill itself is straightforward. It cancels the initiative vote that is currently required under the Recall and Initiative Act on the HST petition and draft bill that was submitted to the Chief Electoral Officer last September. For certainty, the bill also confirms that the Recall and Initiative Act does not apply to the referendum that is being held on the HST question.

I look forward to comments from other members.

B. Ralston: I rise to address this bill on behalf of the official opposition.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

The bill arises out of the changes that took place when the previous Premier decided that the referendum would proceed under the Referendum Act rather than under the Recall and Initiative Act. It revises section 13 of the Recall and Initiative Act, which sets out the procedure for an initiative vote, as it's called, rather than a referendum, following upon the successful receipt and certification of a petition.

[1435]

The initiative vote is set out in section 13, requiring the Chief Electoral Officer to hold an initiative vote. It also goes on to say at section 13(3) that "the regulations may (a) specify what provisions of the Election Act apply,
[ Page 6539 ]
and (b) adapt any of the provisions of the Election Act with changes that the regulations may provide."

The date is set by section 14: "If required, initiative votes must be held on September 28, 1996 and on the last Saturday of September every third year after that date." That's how we came to the date that was referred to previously, the date in September of this year.

Now, the amendment does away with the requirement to have a vote at that time, and the referendum will proceed under the provisions of the Referendum Act.

The Referendum Act is a very brief document. It gives the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council — that is, the cabinet — the opportunity to make regulations that govern the operation of the referendum. I'm quoting from section 6: "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations (a) providing that specified provisions of the Election Act apply to and in relation to a referendum under this Act, and (b) adapting any provisions of that Act with changes that the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers appropriate."

There's a wide possibility there to adapt provisions of the Election Act. I'll be referring to the most notable decision in the regulations that have been put forward, which thus far appear to be the only regulations that are going to be put forward, in the sense that there's no registration required of third parties — that is, people other than the government and the opposition or the proponents — and there's no restriction on the dollar amount that they might spend.

Before I get to that…. That is a very significant aspect of the way in which this referendum will be conducted as opposed to the Recall and Initiative Act, where there was a much more restrictive approach to those provisions. Let's first, if I might, deal with the very issue of the referendum.

There was a considerable debate in the province, broadly speaking, where many people, including many affected businesses, thought that to wait until September for a referendum was…. The uncertainty that that engendered was unfairly damaging their business — particularly in the home-building sector, but other sectors of the economy. Then because of that debate and because of that public pressure, and I think because of the sheer logic of the position, there was discussion about moving the date forward — in other words, into June.

In fact, the new leader of the Liberal Party, although she did slightly deviate from that position at first…. She first proposed cancelling the referendum in favour of a free vote here in the Legislature, a position that I think it would be fair to say was rejected, if not ridiculed, by even fellow Liberal leadership candidates.

After putting forward that position and that flopping, falling on its face, she then moved to the position that the referendum be held on June 24. This was part of the public discussion. It was part of the Liberal leadership debate between leadership candidates, and that became her position. Indeed, in her policy book she stated that "our government will proceed with a June referendum on the HST. The date for the referendum should be June 24."

It is notable that in none of the discussion, none of the material, none of the media interviews, none of the campaign material — indeed, nowhere — was it ever said that it would be a mail referendum with the results coming not in June but in August. That's a significant shift in the position. That was never set forward anywhere as part of the public record at any time.

[1440]

Significantly, as well, the Premier, Ms. Clark, also said in her material: "The referendum will be conducted in the same manner as a provincial election." I'm reading from her policy book, page 11. "The referendum will be conducted in the same manner as a provincial election."

Ordinarily — and I don't think one would dispute this — as a simple matter of fact, the elections provincially are not conducted by a mail ballot. That may be fine for certain forms of society elections or credit union elections, but they're not conducted by a mail-in ballot. Yet the Premier apparently decided that this would be conducted as a mail-in ballot.

That promise, set out in her policy book, was probably broken relatively quickly, because there's no way in which one would construe this mail-in ballot as conducting a referendum in the same manner as a provincial election.

Her course on this matter has been somewhat haphazard — a stab at a vote in the House and no referendum, a promise to have the referendum conducted in the same manner as a provincial election and then resorting to a mail-in ballot, breaking her word on that. That's where we have got to at this point.

We've now had a sense of how this referendum campaign will be conducted. As I said, significantly under the Recall and Initiative Act — and this would be also the case if one is talking about conducting it in the same manner as a provincial election; her words, not mine — there would be limits on spending by third parties. Indeed, that is the case, and I'll get to the court case that decided this issue not too long ago.

Under the Recall and Initiative Act, proponents and opponents must register, have a financial agent, disclose contribution information 90 days after the referendum, comply with limits on anonymous contributions, comply with expense limits. Advertisers must be registered, disclose advertising expenses, comply with a $5,000 limit for third-party advertisers and identify the sponsor in the ad.

Significantly, this referendum…. Despite the power vested in the cabinet to make those regulations — because the Referendum Act gives the cabinet the power to do that, and indeed, they've already promulgated some fairly routine regulations taken from the Election Act
[ Page 6540 ]
about the ballot and timing and various other eligibility issues, a typical election process — the government has declined to issue any direction whatsoever on campaign finance.

So we have a leadership candidate — then a leadership candidate, now a Premier — say that the referendum will be conducted in the same manner as a provincial election yet no limit whatsoever on third-party spending. That is a significant departure from the standards that one would expect in a provincial election. Clearly, there's a design in that. I can't imagine that this is accidental, but that's the manner in which this is going to proceed.

Now, one has to think back to 2008. Here in this chamber the government — the then Attorney General, former Court of Appeal Judge Mr. Justice Oppal — put forward a bill to limit third-party spending not simply during the 28 days from which the date between the election and the time the election is called but extending back 120 days from the date on which the election writ would be issued.

[1445]

That was debated. During the course of the debate the proposed restriction was amended and reduced to 60 days, and it was vigorously defended here in the chamber — about the influence, the effect of third-party advertising on democratic process.

If I might, I'd like to quote the then Attorney General, Mr. Oppal, on May 5, 2008:

"These limits mirror those contained in the Canada Elections Act. We believe these limits are fair and reasonable and will allow third parties to participate in the electoral process without having a disproportionate influence over election outcomes. Again, an important reason for reintroducing spending limits is the effect that set election dates have on the nature of political campaigns in British Columbia.

"As well, in the Supreme Court of Canada, the Hon. Mr. Justice Michel Bastarache, in upholding third-party campaign spending, wrote: 'Without the limits'" — this is not some wild NDP theorist or even an MLA here; this is a member of the Supreme Court of Canada who's saying this — "'a few wealthy groups could drown out others in debates on important political issues.' We agree with that" — to resume quoting Mr. Justice Oppal, as he was at one point, then the Attorney General — "and that is why we are setting reasonable limits on what third parties can spend."

This was in defence of a limit of restricting third-party spending 60 days prior to the issuing of the writ. That ultimately went to the Supreme Court and was struck down, but the limit on third-party advertising during the 28 days prior to the election was not challenged and remains in force. That was the balancing act that was struck by the Supreme Court in its earlier decision, that there could be fewer limits or no limits prior to the issuing of the writ, but during the formal campaign, in order to ensure that a few wealthy groups don't drown out others in debates on important political issues, there be limits on campaign spending.

This appears to be a very commonsense decision. I think it would pass the head nod test, as sometimes people call it, where people sitting around, either at a workplace or at a coffee shop, think there should be some limit on spending in the process of a referendum so that some wealthy groups can't drown out others, to quote Mr. Justice Bastarache. I think most people would agree with that.

Yet this government has chosen to put absolutely no limits on third-party spending — none whatsoever. That really, for most people, causes real concern. We have the Minister of Finance, who has fashioned himself as a neutral arbiter in this process, so he would have us believe, yet third parties will be out there able to spend as much as they want without any restriction, even the kind of restrictions that were in the Recall and Initiative Act.

One can well imagine why there were certain reasons to move for the referendum. Under the Referendum Act, the threshold is different. But an unintended consequence, if one is charitable, or an intended consequence, if one is not, is that these restrictions on third-party spending no longer exist in this referendum. That is of concern to most British Columbians — about the fairness of the referendum process when there is no limit on third-party spending.

It appears that there's no intention to change that. We're well down the road, although I suppose given that we are at the end of April, it would still be open to the government, by order-in-council…. That is, the cabinet could still decide, under the Referendum Act, to put some reasonable limits on third-party spending. We're not asking for a ban — I don't think anyone is asking for a ban — but some reasonable limits, such as those in the Recall and Initiative Act. But I don't expect we'll hear that at all.

In what appears to be a very routine bill, a change that's required to remove the necessity for the Chief Electoral Officer to conduct a referendum in September since one is being conducted by mail ballot beginning in June with results in August, we have some very different results being produced.

[1450]

If I might say, the new Premier, despite her public statement that the referendum would be conducted in the same manner as a provincial election, has broken that promise in two significant ways. One, it will be a mail-in ballot, which is certainly not the way in which a provincial election is conducted, and secondly, there will be no limits whatsoever at any point in the process on third-party spending.

That, I suppose, is the damp clarion call of the new order across the way — two broken promises, a significant deviation within months of issuing her statement as a prospective candidate for the leadership of her party. It's a fairly dismal start for sure and of significant public concern to British Columbians. So with those brief comments, Madam Speaker, I'll resume my place and turn over the floor to other speakers.
[ Page 6541 ]

D. Donaldson: Hon. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill 4, the Harmonized Sales Tax Initiative Vote and Referendum Act. I'd like to take a few moments to talk to this bill, and my comments will centre on fairness and trust. I have a suggestion. I always like offering suggestions to the government to improve bills. So I'm going to offer a suggestion, and then I'm going to also provide a comment around the bill.

My suggestion is around fairness. The fairness involves the spending on the campaigns that will result from this bill. We recently had the Finance Minister announce the government will be spending $1.7 million of taxpayers' money over the next couple of months on HST information. That doesn't actually even include the taxpayer-funded advertising campaign, the costs of which still haven't been worked out.

But in regards to this money, the Premier, Premier Clark, talked during her campaign….

Interjection.

D. Donaldson: The Premier talked previously about "equal funding to both sides of the question." Let's have a look at that $1.7 million. Out of that money, $250,000 is allotted to the no side on the HST on this referendum question. So much for the Premier's promise back in February committing to equal funding to both sides of the question.

Out of $1.7 million, $250,000 is allotted to the no side. So I would say, as a question of fairness, that doesn't equal fairness in most people's minds.

As well as the question of fairness, the third party, which my colleague has described very well previous to my speaking here…. There are no limits in this bill, Bill 4, regarding third-party spending. Unlike in the Recall and Initiative Act, there was potential for limits to be placed on third-party spending.

What does this mean? Well, the big winners will be those who are in favour of the HST. Groups. What are these groups? We know a few of the groups who have come out of the woodwork. These were the groups like the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association and the industry-funded Coast Forest Products Association.

They're the same set of groups that went to court last July to try to prevent the HST initiative from seeing the light of day. They, I believe, were trying to use constitutional arguments to prevent the initiative question from getting out there, and that didn't work out very well.

[1455]

The courts rejected the arguments of these groups. As a result and in the end, the anti-HST petition gathered more than 700,000 signatures and was allowed to stand. Going back again to third-party spending and what it all actually means, it turns out that reporting during the court case that these groups initiated identified that the groups had donated more than $160,000 to the B.C. Liberal Party. I suppose that by going to court they were just trying to get value for their money, since the government had botched the job of delivering the HST in the first place for them. That's one thing about fairness in third-party spending.

Again, it's worth repeating the quote that my hon. colleague, has already entered into Hansard. I think it's worth reporting because it does come from a Supreme Court justice, Mr. Justice Bastarache, who said, in regard to third-party spending: "Without the limits, a few wealthy groups could drown out others in debates on important political issues." Of course, as we've heard, the former Attorney General of this government, the hon. Wally Oppal, agreed with that statement.

So we have a situation where the Premier has said that we want equal funding to both sides of the question. Most people would think: "Well, that means pretty well equal funding to both sides of the question, whether you're in favour of the HST or whether you reject the HST." We know that 700,000 people have already signed, saying they reject the HST. But equal funding to both sides of the question, without third-party spending limits, without the transparency around that….

I understand Open Government is now part of a ministry on the other side of this floor. You know, it would be nice to see. If we're talking about open government, then we should have transparency about third-party spending on the HST referendum.

So again, the Premier said, in her run-up to becoming the Premier…. She urged factual information, not a sell job in relation to the HST. Well, it's hard to know if you're going to get factual information from one side that has no spending limits. The other side has not the same ability to raise dollars with regards to the HST.

For a matter of fairness, I would suggest Bill 4 goes and looks at the Recall and Initiative Act and looks at third-party spending and looks at imposing some reasonable limits on what third-party spending could be to make it fair for both sides and to back up the Premier's words on equal funding to both sides of the question.

My second point I'd like to make, hon. Speaker, is a comment around trust. I believe that when a person holding a position of Premier speaks, people believe them and trust what they have to say. Premier Clark said, and this is a quote at her swearing in: "We're going to have a referendum on June 24" — a referendum on June 24.

Well, most people in the province, I believe, when they heard those words, would think: "Okay, whether I'm for or against the HST, I'm going to have my ability to vote on June 24 on a referendum on whether to accept or reject the HST." That's something that they weren't able to do before the last provincial election because, apparently, the government hadn't made up their mind — or perhaps they did — before the last provincial election around the HST.
[ Page 6542 ]

Anyway, here we are, June 24. Premier says we're going to have a referendum on June 24. What's transpired since then?

Since then we now have a mail-in system. The way Elections B.C. has laid it out — the mail-in system was advocated and put in place by this government, with Premier Clark at the head of it — there are going to be ballots sent out June 13. Hopefully, they say, by June 24 most people will have received those ballots. By July 8…. That's the last day for unregistered voters to request a ballot from Elections B.C. And then lo and behold, July 22 is the final deadline for completed ballots to be received by Elections B.C.

That's a long ways from having your say on a referendum on June 24, something the Premier promised shortly after being sworn in.

We had advocated for the referendum date being moved up, and it was good to see that the government took our suggestion on that. They tried to move it up. It was originally set for September 24.

[1500]

The reason for that — and we heard this on the Finance Committee over and over again, with groups, business groups, presenting — is that the uncertainty is creating a lot of distress. The uncertainty creates a lot of distress in the business community around the HST. So moving it up would help alleviate that, be better for our economy — moving up the referendum.

Well, with this mail-in ballot system that the Premier has now put in place, it's going to result in only having the final vote on the referendum known several weeks before the original September 24 date. It really doesn't move up the uncertainty question to any great degree, and I would say definitely does not fall within what was intended when the Premier said: "We're going to have a referendum on June 24." The ballots won't be finally completed and counted. They will be completed by July 22. But several weeks to count and verify, and we'll know the result in August.

Again, it's a matter of trust, hon. Speaker. If you can't trust the words, "We're going to have a referendum on June 24" — when actually the results won't be known and the date isn't until July 22; the results known in August — then I think that is a bit of a sad commentary on the words of the Premier coming out.

I'll wrap up by saying my two comments on this are around fairness and trust on Bill 4. Fairness around third-party spending limits. If the government wishes to uphold their words around transparency and open government, then I suggest that reasonable third-party spending limits be instituted on the referendum question.

Then on trust, well, we have a mail-in ballot system that runs counter to what appears the words of the Premier were saying: "We're going to have a referendum on June 24." I think that's a rather sad start to what the Premier has said is going to be a more trustworthy government on this other side.

Thank you very much for allowing me some time to talk to Bill 4, hon. Speaker. I'll now take my seat and allow my colleague to begin.

S. Simpson: We're here debating Bill 4. Bill 4 is the Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) Initiative Vote and Referendum Act.

Hon. Speaker, the reason for this bill is to make changes, as has been noted by previous speakers, to what had originally been intended under the Recall and Initiative Act to have a vote on September 24 in regard to the HST, to make a determination about British Columbia's views on the HST and about its future.

The decision has been made by the government, by the Premier to move that up slightly and to change the enabling legislation from the Recall and Initiative Act to the Referendum Act and in doing that commence this action in mid-June resulting in sometime in August us getting a result from this vote.

The other important aspect of this, I think, as has been pointed out, is that we are moving from what was going to be a more conventional ballot, much like an election. That's what the Premier told us we were doing. That's what originally had been intended, but that's now been changed to a mail ballot, and we'll get to see what the circumstances of that are with that mail ballot. But it clearly is a different circumstance from what we had originally anticipated would occur.

Now, I think it's important that as we move forward that people be reminded as to why it is that we're in this situation at all — that we're in fact having this vote at all. I think it's important. Why did we have a September 24 date at all? What created the circumstances that required that? What's created the circumstances that now have us moving back to a mail ballot in June?

Well, just in case people need to be reminded, prior to the last election, of course, the government told us on numerous occasions that they were opposed to the HST and a harmonized sales tax and were supportive of the PST-GST combination as it was.

We were told that continually. We, of course, know that almost immediately following the 2009 election, the government announced its intention to introduce a harmonized sales tax. They brought that forward. They rushed it through.

[1505]

It would have proceeded if it wasn't for people at the grass roots, for the official opposition, for many business people and community interests, particularly small business people, who stood up and said: "This is wrong. The way you've done this is wrong. It shouldn't proceed." And of course, for many consumers, at the point they realized that essentially what this was, a $1.9 billion tax shift from large business to consumers, they said that was wrong too.
[ Page 6543 ]

From a government that continually talks about tax cuts, here they are putting $2 billion of additional taxes on consumers. That's quite a tax cut — $2 billion of additional taxes on the backs of consumers. And of course, we know that the community at the grass-roots level rose up. People came together across the political spectrum and succeeded with the initiative that forced, in fact, the decision to move forward with the September 24 vote that now has, with this legislation, been moved to be a mail ballot under the Referendum Act to proceed in June.

So what is the state of this? What is the situation? Now, as this moves forward, of course, as we always know with these situations, the devil is always in the details. The details around this really reflect on the question about what are the circumstances that are going to be in play as this moves forward. As some of my colleagues have said, the government has announced about $1.7 million of spending that we know about that will be put forward.

That spending will include $250,000 for a yes side and $250,000 for a no side. It also includes about a half-million dollars for educational institutions to do some work around this. We don't know what that means. We don't know who's going to be involved in that, how they balance the academia of that. But that's good. Educational institutions — hopefully, they'll do a good job in terms of hosting some forums. That's not a bad way to spend some money to have a discussion around this.

Then there's $700 million for the government to educate us. This is a government that hardly has a balanced view of this tax on consumers and small business, on working families and small business — a $1.9 billion tax on working families and small business. This is a government that hardly has a balanced view of this, so it will be pretty interesting to see how this $700,000 gets spent.

Of course, on top of that, hon. Speaker, we're not sure whether that's all the spending. The Finance Minister has been questioned in question period about whether there will be additional spending in relation to this. The Finance Minister hasn't quite given us an answer to those questions yet, but we might try again to see if we can get that answer again before we're done here on the second of June. We might try, because the Finance Minister doesn't seem to want to tell us what his plans really are as to how he's going to spend money on this.

That's what's happening with that piece. But that may not be the most concerning piece of this. The no limits — the lack of any limit on third-party spending — may be the biggest concern of all.

The reality is this. If you say to me as the business community, "I'm about prepared to give you $1.9 billion a year in tax breaks in perpetuity every year," then does it seem like it might be a good idea for me to drop a few million dollars to convince the people of British Columbia somehow that them paying this tax rather than the corporations paying it is a good idea? Just might be a good business investment for big business to do that.

Now, I don't have any problem with business deciding that they're going to look after their interest. My concern comes when this government decides to be blatantly unfair and to bias this vote by in fact encouraging that and creating a circumstance that encourages business to do exactly that. I expect business to look after their interests, but I expect the government to look after British Columbians' interest, and you're not doing that.

That's the problem we have. We have a government that's saying to business: "We don't have the courage as a government to stand up and do what we want to do, so you do it for us because you're the beneficiary. You're the big beneficiary, and we're not sure how to explain to British Columbians that a $2 billion tax increase is good for them, so you go explain it to them. Then we'll all be good. And we'll collect your campaign donation before the next election, thank you very much." We see all of these issues weave together.

[1510]

Today, of course, we're going to deal with this bill. We're going to pass this bill. But the story isn't this piece of legislation. The story is everything that has come and brought us to this time and this place.

It is the duplicity of the government in regard to the issue of the HST around the election and what they said the day before and what they said the day after. It is the performance of the government in trying to convince British Columbians that increasing their taxes by $2 billion without one cent of additional funding for services is good for them. It's about them paying off their friends who are the beneficiaries of that without producing one single piece of credible evidence that it actually creates jobs and investment.

That's the situation we're in, but we will move forward. I will say to the government that you might want it load up the money on the corporate side to fight this and to try to promote this tax. You might want to use the government money that you can slide into advertising and other manipulation to fight this, to promote this tax. The reality is this. The people of British Columbia know what this is all about. They know this tax is bad for the province. It's bad for the people of British Columbia, and it's bad for this province in its entirety.

That's what British Columbians know, and they're not going to buy a sell job from the B.C. Liberals to change that. So do whatever you choose to do. Manipulate it however you choose to manipulate it. At the end of the day, come August, we will see this tax defeated in British Columbia, and there will be fairness for British Columbians again when you stop the tax breaks, unfair tax breaks, at the expense of citizens. That's what we're facing.

I look forward to the defeat of this tax come August, when we see that. I look forward to the justifications
[ Page 6544 ]
of the smiling Minister of Finance when he comes to try to defend this tax over the next coming weeks. The reality is this; it's a bad tax. It's on the backs of British Columbians. It doesn't do anything for British Columbians. They know that. Everybody in this province knows that. They'll defeat the tax. It will be a good day for British Columbia.

B. Simpson: Madam Speaker, I'm happy to see the advancement of the referendum on the HST and glad that the government is following through with the previous Premier's commitment to hold it by way of simple majority. [Applause.]

It seems like it might be easy to get applause today.

I think it's important that there is an admission that this has been a debacle. It's been a debacle right from the get-go. Various members of the other side, on the government side, have admitted that. They've admitted it publicly.

It is a necessary step for British Columbia to get this behind us as soon as possible, and it's necessary that for the people who expressed their democratic right in the initiative process, their demand is actually honoured. That's mostly what I want to speak to today: whether or not this bill honours their demand to have a voice or whether there's a trap in this bill that needs to be addressed.

The second part is, of course, that the business and investment community needs to be clear about the future of the HST. I know that there are lots of folks out there…. I've had discussions with the real estate community, where there are strange aspects of this tax that are not being resolved because people are uncertain as to the future of the tax.

Now, I was threatened with recall as a result of the HST, not because of some of my political machinations over the last little while. The conversation went something like this. I was meeting with the initiative group in the Quesnel area about the successful initiative, and one of the individuals put a demand on me that I come down here as a legislator and that I force the Premier to repeal the HST in the House and that I vote very strongly in favour of repealing the HST.

[1515]

My response to that person was, one: "Good luck with that. Let me educate you about being an opposition member in a House." But secondly, it was that I have a broader obligation as an MLA than just the people who happen to be sitting with me at that time. He came back at me: "Well, you're responsible to me. I voted for you, so you will do as I tell you."

I said: "Well, let's go up to West Fraser Mills and sit and have a conversation with the chairman and board of West Fraser Mills. Let's go and have a meeting with the B.C. Cattlemen's Association or the Quesnel Cattlemen's Association. Let's go and have conversations with the local chamber of commerce, because their advice to me is contrary to your advice."

I think one of the problems we have in this House is the polarization of debate. The ideological and partisan nature of the debate makes issues appear as if they are black and white when, in the vast majority of cases, they're shades of grey.

It is without question that this tax shifts a tax burden from large business, in particular, onto the backs of consumers. That's not questioned, and I don't think that the government would continue that argument, although they tried it earlier on. But now that that tax exists, it's not a simple matter, as I told this individual, of flicking a switch and making it disappear and going back to a PST-GST world without some clarity on the part of government as to what that unwinding means.

Does it mean punitive measures on the part of the federal government? If so, how will the provincial government absorb that? Does it mean that if we go back to PST that PST will have to be increased for a period of time in order to deal with the charges associated with unwinding this? Does it mean a potential increase in personal income tax? What does it mean to unwind this tax?

I'm disappointed, in some respects, in the government for not providing that kind of information as clearly as I think the electorate needs to understand how to vote on this initiative when it is actually held.

The government is engaged in a process that I do think, and I agree with opposition members, has a sense of being untoward. I don't believe the government should be holding its Talking Tax town halls, or whatever they want to call them, funding agencies to basically go out and say, according to the ministers: "The tax is good. How do we improve it?"

That's an interference in this democratic process, an interference by government to make a case for a tax that the public has said they don't want but want a voice on the future of. So I do think that's unfair.

I think the fairest thing that the government could have done is simply fund the yes and noes and constrain all other activities other than releasing the independent panel report. I haven't been in my office this afternoon, but it still hasn't been released, and we were promised we would see that independent panel report after the federal election. So a fairer process would be to release the independent panel report, fund the yes and no, and get out of the way and allow British Columbians to make that determination in that vote.

But I also think there's a broader issue, and I won't get into it much because of time. The issue of talking taxes with British Columbians only about the HST misses a critical point, in my estimation. It's actually in today's budget documents, where the budget documents indicate the government is going to have to work very, very hard in order to meet its objectives to have a balanced budget in 2013-2014.

If we're going to go out and talk taxes with British Columbians, we should talk to British Columbians
[ Page 6545 ]
about taxes and revenue writ large, against the backdrop of demands on public services. The member for Juan de Fuca, during the leadership event for the NDP, indicated that we need a fair tax commission of some kind. I would agree to that. We need to actually, all together, embrace this issue of taxation and public services. The government is wasting a whole bunch of money making a justification for HST when we could better use that money to have the broader tax debate.

My final comment and the substantive aspect of what I have to offer to this debate is a concern I have about the structure. I'm of mixed minds relative to a mail-in ballot or a day-of ballot and walking into a ballot box. But we're on this path. It's the path in the bill to hold a mail-in ballot under the auspices of the Referendum Act.

[1520]

There's one fly in the ointment, and that is that Canada Post has a 97 percent strike mandate that could be initiated at some point during this referendum process. They are in negotiations. My understanding is that Elections B.C. is fully aware of this situation and has been talking to Canada Post, but it is outside the control of Elections B.C., outside the control of government. As a consequence, this bill does something that I think is problematic. The bill cancels the initiative, but it also cancels the end date of September 24 to get this thing resolved, by doing so.

We're now in a situation where around June 13 or so the mail ballots are going to start going out, and they have until July 22. If at any point during that time period there is an interruption in mail service, then I'm concerned we are setting ourselves up for legal action against the outcome of the referendum. If people claim that as a result of an interruption in the mail service they did not have an opportunity to exercise their rights in this referendum, then I think we have created a situation where now we have a litigation potential against the referendum.

That's one issue I'm concerned about. The second is if…. There's a clause in the act that allows Elections B.C., through the Chief Electoral Officer, to take into consideration emergency circumstances, adjust the date in accordance and then make a case later to the Legislature by way of a report on why the date was shifted.

But if you think about the timing of this, if something happens in that June window and the Elections B.C. Chief Electoral Officer decides that that's not a good window because there may be a strike, then we're into summer, and holding a mail-in referendum in summer, I think, would not be a fair way to get the voice of the people, which then takes us to the fall.

What's happening is there's no compunction for the government to get this thing done, so I've tabled an amendment. I will speak to it tomorrow. I've got some questions for the minister in third reading about whether or not the government can provide to this House a contingency plan in their dialogue with Elections B.C. so that we know that this HST issue will be resolved once and for all by September 24 and won't be dragged out any further than that.

My recommendation is that if we're not sure about that, then we should actually repeal this bill on June 24 so we've got the 90 days to give notice to hold a referendum on September 24. If we think we're putting ourselves in a position where we're going to have a referendum event that litigation can be put against because of an interruption from the mail service, then I believe that we have to have a fail-safe, and there's no fail-safe in the act as it is just now.

Finally, I would like to see all MLAs engaged in this and engaged in making sure we have an informed debate. I would hope that the government, in conjunction with Elections B.C., would make sure that all of our constituency assistants are fully educated about how this mail-in ballot is going to happen, that they are given an information package — because we're going to get the calls — and that we will be able to give informed advice to individuals about how to get packages, when to mail them in and all of the things that are going to happen as a result of people wanting to participate in this process.

But I do hope the government will bring forward some sense of a contingency plan in the event that this mail-in ballot is interrupted by a mail strike.

M. Sather: It is indeed my pleasure to respond to Bill 4, Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) Initiative Vote and Referendum Act. Well, it definitely has been a long, strange trip with the HST and continues to be. The people of British Columbia were led to believe — more correctly, misled — that there wasn't going to be any HST, and then we saw the contortions the government went through to try to explain it.

[1525]

But as we move on to this phase of this fiasco, certainly, we have to look to what Christy Clark, the current Premier of this province, has to say about it. This is what she said just last year: "It's an insult to British Columbians for the government to, first of all, have brought in the tax in what most of us regard as a very, very sneaky way and then refuse to bother explaining why they did it properly. They can't even be bothered to mount a defence. And I think that's an insult."

She went on to say that it seems impossible the tax wasn't contemplated before the spring ballot. "I just don't think it's possible that that could be the case."

There's a clear condemnation of the genesis of this whole thing from Christy Clark, who is the current, albeit absent, Premier of this province. There's a lot of explaining that needs to be done about this. No doubt about it.
[ Page 6546 ]

The Premier herself, before she became Premier, had the idea: "Well, you know what?" She seemed to be quite anxious, quite hurried, to get rid of this whole affair. She said, "We'll just have everybody go back to the House and revote it; we'll revote on the HST," although some of her colleagues had to then remind her: "Well, you know what? We've already done that three times."

So I don't know if there was a caucus revolt or what the dynamics of it were, but lo and behold, the Premier then decided: "Well, no, I guess maybe we won't have that vote just after the election that I had and when I get my members back into the House, albeit very belatedly."

So we went from there to a decision that she made to say that we will have the vote on June 24. We agreed to that, on this side of the House. We thought it would be straightforward. The Premier said that it will be held like an election. If you have an election, you have an election day, you vote, the votes are counted that night, and it's all over with.

Then again, there was another twist and turn in the journey led by the erstwhile Premier. She said: "Oh no, we're not going to do it that way after all. We're going to do a mail-in ballot." The mail-in ballot, as has been explained, will take place between June 23, with all the ballots having to be in by July 2, and will be counted sometime in August.

So all of this contortion to move the date back from September to June — which is a good idea, given all of the uncertainty not only amongst business but also amongst consumers about whether or not to do their renovations now or whether or not to wait until after the HST vote — is going to be I don't know what. They moved it back by a month, maybe — that is, assuming the postal strike doesn't get in the way, as the previous speaker just mentioned.

Interjection.

M. Sather: So it's a peculiar rendition of reality, and I know that the member for Kamloops–South Thompson agrees with me wholeheartedly. It's good to see his support again in this House, Madam Speaker.

The spending, however, is something else. Right out of the hopper, there's $500,000 to be split between the yes and the no sides. Sounds pretty darn reasonable. Everybody gets the same amount.

It was too good to be true, unfortunately, because then the Premier went on to explain — and the B.C. Liberals explained — that there will be an additional $500,000 to universities, colleges and institutes. Now, I don't know what institutes those will be. I'm looking forward to finding that out. I wonder if it's going to be the Fraser Institute, for example, that's going to be one of those institutes that will be — in an unbiased fashion, I'm sure — explaining the HST to British Columbians. If that's so, I know that this government, because they are committed to fairness, will also let the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives have a go at it as part of that $500,000.

[1530]

Then we mustn't forget — and the people of British Columbia don't — $700,000 down the drain from a pamphlet. Sorry, the $700,000 is the voters' guide. Now, that is another thing that the government is going to be unbiased about, we're absolutely certain. We look forward to that, albeit I don't think the taxpayers particularly do, particularly on the spending side. The government has informed us that they're going to do factual, unbiased information.

We've got the Talking Tax tour of the Ministers of Finance and of Transportation. That one got off to a pretty rocky start too, I must say, where the Finance Minister said, "Well, you know what? We might talk about knocking back the HST a percent," and then the Premier said: "Oh, wait a minute; we're not going to be doing that." She says: "We aren't going to be talking about trying to reduce it by a point or two before the referendum." I mean, I think people will see that as buying them with their own money.

We have to agree with Christy Clark on this one. I'm sure when she does get into the House eventually that they will get on the same page about what they're doing with regard to policy. I know some of the members opposite, some of them who ran for leadership themselves, have some questions about the capability of the minister and the terms of the governing end of things. I remember watching her on television in the '90s. She was a very able opposition member. That doesn't translate, though, unfortunately, into being a good leader. I think that's what the members opposite are now finding.

You know, there was $780,000 — that's what the amount was, not $700,000 — on the scrapped pamphlet that the government threw in the recycle. Let's hope it wasn't in the garbage. Last fall there was $48,000 of government spending for polling and $70,000 more for two pro-HST websites. That's not to mention, of course — which other speakers have already talked about — the amount of third-party business advertising that's going to take place. So much for the fair and balanced referendum campaign.

You know, all I can say is that we need to have the leadership. We need to know what Christy Clark, the Premier, actually thinks about these issues. We would like to see her here in this House. It's been over two months — over two months, Madam Speaker — since she was elected, and she's not here yet. If she's fortunate enough to get elected during the May 11 vote, then there's the return-of-the-writ period. I mean, we may not see her for more than four days this whole session.

Interjection.
[ Page 6547 ]

M. Sather: Yeah, if we're lucky. We should feel so fortunate if she shows up for four days.

I think that's the way she wants it, which is really disappointing, because I thought Christy Clark had a lot of jam. I thought she would want to be in the House, but she seems to be avoiding this House in all ways possible, kind of taking a leaf out of the book of the former Premier. You know, he was in the House from time to time; I have to give him that. Although when he came to Maple Ridge, I know it was always skulkingly. Nobody ever knew he was there. The hiding-out methodology of governing — I don't think it's the way to go.

The Premier doesn't even want to debate in the by-election. She's out there modelling various uniforms and this sort of thing. I don't think that's what the people of British Columbia want to see. They want to see a Premier who takes the business of the people seriously, who will come into this House and will address the issue of the HST, will address all the other important issues. That's what we're looking forward to — some kind of leadership. We're not seeing it yet.

N. Macdonald: I'll keep my remarks fairly tight. Many of the things that we're going to talk about have been broached already by fellow members of the opposition.

I do want to put on record, as I did when we were back here a year ago talking about the HST as a piece of legislation…. I did put on the record things that people in my constituency had sent to me, talking about the impact of the harmonized sales tax. I want to do that just with one more person, talking about the impact not only of the legislation but of the uncertainty that has been created.

We're here looking at Bill 4, and it basically replaces the September 24 referendum that's required under the Recall and Initiative Act. The mail-in referendum will be set under — as the minister pointed out — the Referendum Act, and the rules for that will be set without the scrutiny of the Legislature. It's going to be done by regulation.

[1535]

Now, I think what everyone understands in British Columbia is that this is a government that has a willingness, almost a readiness, to manipulate processes. They do that regularly, even with things that should be as sacred as how we work in the House. So it's a government that's willing to do that.

I'll just touch on one very clear manipulation that's begun, and that's around the financing. There is a recognition in what the Premier has said and what this government has said that money plays a factor in creating a fair process.

They've provided money. They've provided a tiny sum for one side in favour of the referendum and a tiny sum for the other side. So there's recognition that money plays a factor. But then they set up the process by very deliberately not putting in place any restrictions at all on third-party funding, with commercials or advertising or any limitations at all. What we know is that that is going to create a massive imbalance.

There's a willingness to try, on behalf of this government, to get their way on this. That's the pattern we have seen from the beginning — a willingness to bend what is acceptable practice in order to get the result that they want.

That began when the HST was first introduced, following a very clear commitment — a written commitment during the election in 2009 — to not introduce the HST. It began then, and it has continued over the past year and a half or two years. It continues with this legislation. It's clear that there is going to be a lack of fairness, because there will not be rules in place to limit spending.

There was also a clear promise by the Premier — and it's been alluded to by previous speakers — to move up the date of the referendum. I want to speak to the uncertainty about a process that now stretches into August, instead of a conclusive result delivered June 24.

I'll just take one example from one business. Remember, the cost of the HST impacted restaurant meals, telephone, hockey tickets, haircuts, movies — a whole host of new areas that were not previously covered by the PST, including bicycles, as I'm reminded — a long, long list. I just want to talk to one of them. It is around condominium sales.

This is an e-mail that was sent to me by a realtor from the East Kootenay, Marilyn Jolie. She's referring to the sale of condominiums up at the resort in Kimberley. I'll just quote from the letter that was sent. Marilyn says that there is difficulty in selling condos on the ski hill because of the implementation of the harmonized sales tax.

Then she goes on to explain: "Should someone want to buy a condominium in B.C., the HST must be paid each time, as they are viewed as a commercial enterprise. So say I have a buyer coming in this weekend, and they would like to purchase a condominium for themselves and family." So there's no rental pool here. "They will have to pay 12 percent on the purchase price. So if the condominium is valued at $300,000, then $36,000 is due and payable on completion, as well as the property transfer tax."

Now, we come from a border region. We compete for tourism and for purchases like this with Alberta and the United States. Most of the people, about 70 percent, that come in to Kimberley resort come from jurisdictions that lie to the east of British Columbia.

"So the buyer that purchased that same condominium would have no HST and would pay 7 percent less, and the property transfer tax would not be there. Or they can go to the States and purchase without any additional taxes at all. And believe me, they do," says Marilyn Jolie.

[1540]
[ Page 6548 ]

She goes on to say that this is making life difficult for all resort communities. This is discretionary spending for the most part. She says clearly that the uncertainty of when the HST will be repealed is also an issue. "Why buy now? Let's wait and see where the HST will go."

I just refer to that in that the HST was introduced July 1, so the summer season for selling was lost last year. Because we are not going to a definitive answer on June 24 with this process, we again lose the summer season for realtors in Kimberley and other resort communities.

"The tax being implemented across the board was thoughtless and unfair. They say business will hire more people when they make more money, and that is true to a certain extent, but look at the billions the corporations have in cash now, and they're sitting on it. They're not hiring as they should be. The fairy tale about passing savings on to the consumer, of course, has not happened." So that's Marilyn Jolie. It's just one example of what MLAs are hearing in their offices and have heard for the past year and a half or two years.

This tax is a problem. The longer the uncertainty remains is a problem. This side feels so confidently from what we've heard in our areas that the tax will be rejected that we're choosing to overlook deficiencies in the system that the government is putting forward. But there is no question that from day one this initiative has been a debacle. It has been a disaster. It has cost Premier Campbell his job. There's no question it has cost the credibility of some very fine members on the government side. It continues to be a problem.

Now, I want to keep my remarks very quick. We have in the past been given an opportunity to go through and list example after example of where the harmonized sales tax has hurt the people that we represent. I know that in my area 30 percent of the people took the time to find the opportunity to sign the initiative petition, which I think we need to remember is where this began.

This began as the people of British Columbia standing up to a tax that was seen as introduced in a duplicitous way and one that was clearly unfair in that it shifted the taxes from corporations, in many cases multinationals, onto the backs of individuals and families to the extent of almost $2 billion per year.

So that debate has been had. The next debate will very clearly be as unfair as the government can make it, but in the end I feel confident that certainly the people that I represent will take the opportunity to reject the harmonized sales tax and will look to the government to follow through on its commitment to rid us of the HST.

J. Brar: I would like to also make brief comments to Bill 4, Harmonized Sales Tax Initiative Vote and Referendum Act. When it comes to HST, one of the things the people of B.C. think about is that a clear promise was made to the people of B.C. by the B.C. Liberal Party before the last election that they had no plans to introduce HST. But as soon as the election was over, within three days after the election, they had their first meeting with the federal officials, still claiming they knew nothing about the HST before the election.

The people of B.C. certainly don't believe the B.C. Liberal government on that. Therefore, it's very important that we conduct this referendum in a way so that people of B.C. find that this is a fair process, not biased in any way or not biased for any group.

If we look back, during the Liberal leadership race one of the candidates, Christy Clark, made a very clear promise to the people of B.C. during her leadership race bid. The promise was that "the referendum will be conducted in the same manner as a provincial election."

[1545]

It is a very clear promise made to the people that it will be a very similar, same, identical process as the provincial elections conducted to conduct the referendum on HST. That was the promise given by Christy Clark to the people of B.C. when she was in the leadership race. But as soon as the race was over, and as soon as she became the Premier of B.C., she changed her mind. She changed her mind, and she made a completely different announcement. The announcement was that the HST referendum will be conducted through a mail-in ballot — a mail-in ballot, Madam Speaker. That's a completely different process than the provincial election process.

So on that one the question is how the people of B.C. can trust this Premier who made a promise to the people of B.C. to conduct the referendum as a provincial election but then changed her mind after winning the election to do it a completely different way and through mail-in ballot. That goes back to the promise this government made before the election, so it's very important that this referendum is conducted in the most fair, unbiased way so that people get the factual and objective information when it comes to HST so that they can make the right decision.

That's the purpose of a referendum — that people have all the accurate information. Then people go in, and they can choose what they want to do with the HST. That's the first point — that Premier Clark has changed her mind and broken a promise on the HST already, which she gave to the people of B.C. before becoming the Premier.

The second point I want to raise is that there is no limit on third-party spending. Again, the promise made by this government to the people of B.C. was that there will be a fair debate, that there will be a spending limit so that both parties — the party opposing HST and the party supporting HST — will have similar funding so that there's a balance in debate.
[ Page 6549 ]

That promise was made by the same government before the Liberal leadership race. But now we know that the new Finance Minister or the new government under Premier Christy Clark has changed its mind again, and they broke that promise as well.

Now, there is no limit on third-party spending — absolutely no limit. What it means is that the big corporations can spend $10 million or $50 million, if they wish to, just to convince the people of B.C. that the HST is good for them. This is of course in their interests because the HST is a tax shift of $2 billion from the corporations to medium and small businesses and the people of B.C.

So by saving the HST, they saved $2 billion in this tax shift. It is in their interests to spend as much money as they can to convince the people of B.C. to just keep the HST. Therefore, it is not a fair process that one party can spend unlimited money because they have it and the other party cannot spend that amount of money.

As I said before, the corporations can probably spend $10 million on this, when people opposing may only spend $100,000 because that's the money they have. If this government wants to build any credibility among the people of B.C. on the issue of the HST, then this government must restore that balance. This government must put very clear spending limits when it comes to the third-party advertisement on the HST.

I would like to suggest that under that, there must be a third-party spending limit put in place so that the people of B.C. get very objective, unbiased and fair information so that they can make a decision based on that information. That's very important.

[1550]

I would also like to briefly speak about the impact of HST on people of B.C., particularly people in Surrey. What I have heard from the people of B.C., and people of Surrey particularly, is that this whole issue of HST — the way it was introduced, the way it has been handled by B.C. Liberals, the way it was brought in — has created a lot of uncertainty. That has had a huge impact on the economy of B.C. That's what I hear from the people in Surrey.

It has certainly a huge impact on small businesses and the people of B.C. It's costing way more for many things for the people of B.C. as compared to the past. That is also an issue I hear from the people of B.C.

The HST also has created for small business people a huge problem of cash flow. It's a huge problem of cash flow because now in many situations they have to pay, upfront, 12 percent HST. Many small businesses don't have that much money to continue the cash flow. So that creates a huge problem for them as well.

Having said that, I would like to conclude in my comments that, in order to build some credibility, this government must stand and keep their promises as made on HST, particularly the promise they made on the third-party spending limit. There must be a spending limit. Otherwise this will not serve the purpose, for people, of a fair and unbiased referendum.

With that, Madam Speaker, I will take my seat. Maybe another member can go on this.

H. Bains: It is my honour to stand here to speak on Bill 4, Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) Initiative Vote and Referendum Act. Three issues come to my mind, and some of them have been articulated by my colleagues previous to me.

One is the matter of trust or lack thereof. I think when you look at the history of how this tax was brought in, the hated tax in the province, where the government before the election said that they were not contemplating to bring this tax in…. Even though they were asked specifically in writing, they said no, that they were not contemplating.

Madam Speaker, what did they do after the election? They brought it in. Without consultation, without informing anybody, they rushed in, and the tax was brought in. It left a huge impact on small businesses and consumers. I can tell you…. There's a restaurant owner that I know. He tells me 29 percent — business that was affected by HST since the HST was brought in. Another manager I know who manages a chain of restaurants, about three of them, said it ranged from 10 to 27 percent.

That's just the business side, but then there are consumers who will be burdened with this tax if it goes through. A record number, over 700,000 British Columbians that signed that petition, are telling this government that they don't like this tax. They don't like the way it was brought in, they don't like the tax itself, and government was forced to bring in the referendum.

The referendum was to take place September 13, I believe it was. The new Premier, during her leadership campaign, said that she would move the referendum to June 24. There was some relief in many of those businesses which are waiting to have some inflow into their businesses — a new infusion of capital which was being held back because of this uncertainty that was created until this issue was decided. Businesses were suffering.

People believed that. Well, what happened? Just like they did when they brought this tax in, they told you something different before the election and did exactly the opposite after the election. Same thing this new Premier has done.

[1555]

She said during her leadership campaign that she will bring this referendum in, that she's moving this referendum to June 24. People got some relief and thought, "Well, you know, there will be some…." Uncertainty that was created by this lengthy delay, by this referendum, will be removed, and their businesses will start to prosper again.

Guess what. New Premier, same old approach — says one thing before the election and does quite the oppos-
[ Page 6550 ]
ite after the election. Nothing has changed. Only the face has changed, and the name has changed. Same approach, flip-flop — say one thing before the election and do quite the opposite after the election. That's the record of this government, and people are tired of that.

People want an opportunity to get on with their lives. Businesses want to have certainty so that they can get on with their businesses. But this government is not helping. When you look at how they are conducting the business for people, that's why people do not trust this government. That's why people want to get rid of this government — so that they can have a government they can have trust in. At least they will have some certainty in their businesses, and the people will know exactly what they're expected of and what kinds of taxes they would be paying.

Madam Speaker, the third part that I want to talk about during this debate is the unfairness. Again, new Premier, same old approach. They say one thing, but they do quite the opposite after they have said what they would not do. Consistently, the new Premier said: "Well, you know, we will have equal funding available to the no side and the yes side."

Well, what did they do after the election, when she won the leadership? Well, $1.7 million is allocated to this referendum. I don't even know what they call it, but there's $1.7 million available to parties who are for or against, but only $250,000 to the no side. What kind of fairness is being created? That's the question that the people are asking — not only that they said that's what they would do, but they have done quite the opposite after what they said they wouldn't do. But here is what they've been referring to.

The previous Attorney General has also said the same thing — that there has to be fairness when we are conducting elections, when we are conducting these referendums. This is what he said about creating fairness. This is what I will read from one of his speeches. "These limits mirror those contained in the Canada Elections Act. We believe these limits are fair and reasonable and will allow third parties to participate in the electoral process without having a disproportionate influence over election outcomes."

What does this government do? Again, they don't pay one iota of attention to fairness. They are hell-bent to bring in the HST, and they are hell-bent to do whatever it takes to have the referendum passed and forced down onto the consumers and onto the small businesses who are hurting.

[D. Black in the chair.]

So who are they governing for? That's the question that the people are asking. They certainly are not governing for those restaurant owners and those restaurant managers who told me that their business has gone down by 10 to 27 percent. They certainly are not governing for consumers, who will now be paying a lot more taxes on items that they never paid before. That's the record of this government.

New Premier, same old approach. Although she said that she wants to make sure that she will do business differently and that she wants to bring family first…. Well, whose family first? This is a burden on British Columbia's families, if the HST referendum goes through. This government is creating an unfair playing field by giving more money on the advertisement side to the yes side, and the government themselves will not come clean and tell the public how much money they are spending on advertising for HST so that they can force this unfair tax onto the consumers and the small businesses.

Madam Speaker, those are the three points that I want to make. Those are the three points that my constituents in Surrey-Newton want me to make and bring here to this government's attention.

[1600]

The Finance Minister. He comes from that region, and I thought he would pay a bit more attention to the people who have sent us down here to represent our constituents. But obviously, the Finance Minister again is toeing the line of his friends and big business, because they are the only ones who will benefit from it — not consumers, not small business.

I urge this government on behalf of my constituents and all British Columbians, for their sake, for their family's sake: do not create an unfair playing field when it comes to the referendum. Let them decide. They have already sent a very clear message to you when they signed that petition — over 700,000. They don't like this tax. But let them decide now. Do not interfere by interjecting with their own tax dollars to tell them what is right for them.

That's not how you govern. You need to govern the way you promised them to govern. You let them know what kinds of taxes they can expect. You let them know what kinds of uncertainties or certainties there are for their businesses.

Madam Speaker, I know my time is not much. I think time is running out, and I will sit down by making those points. [Applause.] See? I think, you know, they are paying attention. But hopefully, this government will pay attention to those concerns of my constituents and many other constituents across this province and not interfere with that process.

D. Routley: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and welcome to that chair. It's certainly a new face in the Speaker's chair, and we're all congratulating our new occupant of the chair.

I rise today to speak about Bill 4, which we're supporting, but with considerable reservations. The basic principle that brought about Bill 4 was essentially a loss
[ Page 6551 ]
of trust in government. Bill 4 wouldn't be necessary if there hadn't been a failure by the B.C. Liberal government to be clear, when they ran for re-election, about their intentions regarding the HST.

Bill 4 has only become necessary because of the massive civilian reaction to having been misled by their government. What we saw in this province was an unprecedented reaction. If people out there feel that there is too much cynicism — and I'm sure cynicism is a booming commodity in this province — we should be reassured by the fact that people did respond with such rightfully held anger to having been misled by their government. That is in a sense reassuring — that reaction.

What is problematic with Bill 4 is not that it attempts to redress that loss of trust but that it fails to provide the mechanisms necessary to do that with fairness. Essentially, people responded to the HST because of the fact that they were misled by the B.C. Liberal government. But their response also was generated and fuelled by the fact that people felt it was unfair that there should be a $2 billion tax shift from the largest corporations in the province onto the backs of individual citizens and small businesses.

Small businesses, which create employment in this province, were penalized by the effects of the HST. The restaurant industry has been heard loud and clear. The real estate industry, homebuilders. These are people who provide jobs in this province, and they are being penalized at the expense of those huge corporations that will benefit from the HST, particularly those corporations that are exporting our resources, like our logs in raw form, without exacting the best benefit from those resources.

The very businesses that are providing employment in this province are being penalized. They are being burned by the HST, and those huge corporations that benefit and export our jobs are being rewarded. This is something that I think British Columbians by and large reject.

[1605]

They reject that a consumption tax is a progressive approach to collecting revenue, and they are responding to the fact that they've been told that their services are at risk at the same time that they have been told that the tax is revenue-neutral. Both things can't be true.

I think all of this has contributed to an absolute loss of faith and trust with the B.C. Liberal government. Bill 4 never would have been necessary had there not been that initial failure to consult with the people of this province about tax policy. Not only was the failure restricted to the HST, but the failure to consult with the province is broad spread in the history of this B.C. Liberal government. They have failed to open a dialogue with British Columbians about taxation and revenue in a broad sense, and Bill 4, unfortunately, continues that failure.

It does speed up the referendum date; it brings it forward. But what we heard during the B.C. Liberal leadership campaign from all the candidates was that we would have a referendum on June 24. Bill 4 provides for a mail-in ballot that will stretch that out potentially for another two months beyond June 24 into August, which continues the uncertainty, which is the greatest cost to the economy that the HST is exacting from this province.

We need a conversation on fair taxation. We need a broad debate, a broad discussion about how we are taxed, how we contribute, each of us, to the support of our services. This bill fails again to create the grounds and the circumstances for that kind of a discussion. The B.C. Liberals have failed to consult British Columbians about the priorities that taxation should represent. This bill does not provide an opportunity for that. In fact, it puts off that discussion.

British Columbians know very well that they rely on their public services and the excellence of those services and the standards that have been maintained. We know, as citizens of this province, that public services such as education, health, transportation, and so on are the bedrock of a successful economy and also of a thriving society. We are ready, I believe, all British Columbians, to pitch in — to roll up our sleeves and pitch in, contribute our fair share to support this province.

But the HST failed to address the issue of progressiveness in the tax regime of this province. Bill 4, while it brings forward the referendum date, does not offer in any way an opportunity for British Columbians to hear themselves, for the government to hear from British Columbians, when it comes to tax policy.

I would hope that the B.C. Liberals have been listening. If they have been listening, they would have heard from the people of this province that the essential issue at stake here is the confidence people have in their government, the confidence and trust they have that their government has been duly elected and will treat them fairly and will fairly represent their views and their priorities, that their government will communicate with them, that their government will be honest with them.

That is what has led to Bill 4: a failure by government to be honest with the people of this province. This government, during a very cynical election campaign, made a promise, actually, in writing to the restaurant industry of this province not to introduce the HST and immediately turned around and did so.

The reaction, as we all know, was spectacular and powerful: over 700,000 British Columbians signing a petition demanding a referendum and their chance to be heard on the HST. This government had to recoil from their positions. The Premier of the province had to resign in disgrace over the way the HST was introduced and the misleading tactics that were adopted in the introduction of that tax.
[ Page 6552 ]

As a result, we had months and months of campaigning to generate the support, to demand that the voices of the people of B.C. be heard. Then we were subjected, as an economy, to an uncertainty that was unprecedented in this province around taxation so that whole industries have been paralyzed. Bill 4 was meant to bring that uncertainty to an end.

[1610]

The referendum and initiative act provided for a referendum in September. During the leadership campaigns of the B.C. Liberal leadership candidates, they all committed to bring that date forward. Ms. Clark, the Premier-elect of this province, committed to a date of June 24, and I think that people, despite the cynicism they were feeling toward their own government and despite the fact that they felt they had been deceived by their own government, invested in that promise. There was an investment of faith again.

Unfortunately, the biggest cost of the HST, I believe, is not to the economy but to public process and to democracy, to a failure of this House and the government in this House to live up to their obligation to be honest with the people of B.C. That is a huge cost.

Any mess is more expensive to clean up than avoiding it in the first place, and the HST is the perfect example of that. This referendum will question the people of the province as to their priorities. It will ask: should we abolish the HST? It will also remind British Columbians that there is a heavy cost to abolishing that tax.

Of course, the B.C. Liberals promised a deficit of no more than $495 million — not a penny more. Probably 50 to a hundred times the Finance Minister stood in this House and made that promise repeatedly before the election, but then after the election we found out that the deficit was in fact approximately $3 billion. That's why the federal payoff for harmonizing our sales tax was accepted as reason enough to break their promise that they made during the election, and that's why the people have lost faith.

That loss of faith is a huge cost to democracy. Bill 4 offered an opportunity to redress some of that loss of faith. Bill 4, if it had lived up to the promises of the Premier as she ran for the leadership of her party, could have redressed some of that loss of faith. But the fact that it now includes a mail-in ballot that will further extend that period of uncertainty into August, almost to the date that a referendum would have occurred under the referendum and initiative act…. That is a further loss of faith, and once stung twice, the cynicism grows even deeper in its hold on people's faith.

It is unfortunate that people can struggle in this province to support their families, to support their communities, to make ends meet and contribute to each other's well-being through taxes, contribute to the health care and education and public services of this province, to keep our communities thriving and healthy. It is unfortunate that that good faith is rewarded with this further loss of faith.

I mean, Bill 4 seems minor in the bigger picture of the entire story of the HST. Yes, it's moving the date forward, but that further contribution to a loss of faith in the people is an incredible cost. If this were question period, I would be asking the government members how they propose to restore that faith in the people of B.C.

Now that the trust of the people has been lost by this government, how on earth does Bill 4 contribute to restoring that faith when throughout their own leadership campaign every one of their candidates promised to bring the referendum forward to June 24, and now, because it's a mail-in ballot, we find out it will extend into August? That is unfortunate, particularly when the victorious candidate in that race promised that the referendum would be run like a provincial election.

[1615]

A provincial election occurs on a set date, and the election results are known within hours. It ends uncertainty. This is not like that. A provincial election would be run with spending limits on all parties. In fact, this government brought in an election gag law that was criticized far and wide as restricting the voices of third parties.

If the Premier really meant what she said, then perhaps she would live up to her words and run this referendum like an election and give us a decision quickly, and also control the fairness of this process by controlling the effect that powerful sectors of our community have on the discussion.

Clearly, those corporations who benefit from this tax are huge. They are excellent players in our community and essential components of our economy, but they will guard their interests, as they should. It is the job of that government in this place to balance those interests, to provide a fair playing field. This bill fails miserably to provide that balanced playing field. If it did, it would set reasonable limits on all parties, including itself.

If the Premier meant what she said, then surely operating the referendum like a provincial election would mean that the government would stop promoting itself, would disconnect itself from the ability to promote its policies through its ministries. This government will not do that.

So while we support the bill because it moves forward the date of the referendum, although very little in the end, it is with great reservation. For myself, it is with the deepest sense of regret that I see that the provincial government is ready again to disinvest in the building of faith in this province. Again, the provincial government is prepared to allow a loss of faith in process.

I will call on all the members on the other side to live up to those basic principles and, when the HST referendum occurs, to live by the results and respect the people, because this is not their referendum, this is not their House, this is not their province, and this is not their
[ Page 6553 ]
government. It is the referendum of the people of B.C. This is their House. That should be their government, so I would like to see that actually happen.

Deputy Speaker: Member for Juan de Fuca. [Applause.]

J. Horgan: There's a healthy clap from my friend from Maple Ridge. Thank you.

It's a pleasure to stand up here in the front row with the big kids, instead of sitting way back there in the corner eating worms.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: Thanks very much. There's more elbow room in the back corner; I've got to tell you that. Ranger probably eats worms as well.

Bill 4 is a broken promise, and I wanted to not miss the opportunity to stand and focus on that for my constituents in Juan de Fuca. We got to this point — as you know, hon. Speaker, and as members on both sides of the House know — by the implementation of the harmonized sales tax without any consultation, without any discussion with the public about the impacts of that tax, without any consultation whatsoever with the businesses that would be affected by that tax.

Ultimately, we are here now, two years later, trying to fix the mistake that the former Finance Minister, the member for Vancouver-Quilchena, and the former Premier, Gordon Campbell, brought upon this Legislature and this province without any regard for the impact it would have on individuals, on families and on businesses.

The uncertainty in the economy in and of itself would be sufficient for us to say categorically, without any hesitation, that the government botched the file. The government completely and utterly botched the file, and it's had a negative impact on the economy. You don't hear them talking about issues like that on the other side of the House. You don't hear people on that side of the House recognizing and acknowledging when errors are made.

I've been participating in a discussion with citizens over the past number of months in my role as a member of this place, and I've been talking to lots of people about the impact of decisions that are made right here, the impact of decisions that we make without, in some instances, any regard for what's happening back home.

I'm here to tell you that most people, when they hear we're going to have a vote on something, assume that that's going to take place on one day. We had a vote yesterday. The whole country voted. Millions and millions of people showed up to voice their opinion on candidates and constituencies right across Canada.

[1620]

In the leadership contest that took place on the other side, the winning candidate — Christy Clark, the current Premier of British Columbia — said categorically that we would first have a vote in this place on the HST. Categorical, unequivocal — that's what we'll do. We'll call members of the Legislature back, and we'll vote on the question — until she was updated on the status of the legislation.

She had been involved in private life, I understand, as a talk show host. I was never invited on the program. I don't know if there were many members on this side of the House invited onto the program. It was Liberal talk radio all the time between two o'clock and three o'clock every day. Come on, Liberal candidates. Come on, Liberal MLAs. Come on, Liberal ministers. Come on, former Liberal ministers. Come on the Christy Clark Show and talk about Liberal policy.

I, in the time she was on the program, was never invited. I was ridiculed and scorned and mocked several times. I was never asked my opinion. I was never asked to come on the program and elucidate and discuss issues of importance in my constituency or in this place, but that's because it was Liberal talk radio.

Anyway, Premier Christy Clark used to be on Liberal talk radio, and she used to condemn the harmonized sales tax. When she entered the leadership race, she said there was going to be a vote in this place. Well, let's scrap that.

We then got on to: "We're going to have a referendum; we're going to have a vote." Most people, as I said at the start of my remarks, assumed that that vote will take place on one day. It was scheduled by the previous Premier as part of the Recall and Initiative Act to take place in September. I think it was September 24, September 25 — something like that.

Everyone agreed. In fact, I recall a bill was introduced in this place by the occupant of the Speaker's chair today urging the government to move that date forward to June. Well, as it happens, we have a June date, but it's not a single day. I heard the minister, the Attorney General say we've got a range of time to do our voting. We're going to send out ballots sometime around the middle of June, and we're going to ask for them back sometime around the middle of August.

So we're going to be voting in a referendum which was supposed to be on the 24th of June, according to Christy Clark. She said categorically and unequivocally: "We're going to vote on the 24th of June." Now we're voting sometime between the middle of June and sometime between then and the end of August or the middle of August.

That strikes me, hon. Speaker, as a broken promise. Now, I know that usually you get into this place before you start breaking promises, but the Premier has decided, in her wisdom, to break promises before she even arrives on the scene. That is what we have with Bill 4.
[ Page 6554 ]

Now, I believe that the people of British Columbia will in large numbers respond to this mail-in referendum, and they will reject the harmonized sales tax. They'll do so for a number of reasons. The transfer, the shift, of taxation from large corporations to the backs of consumers is probably sufficient in and of itself — a $2 billion shift from large corporations to citizens. That strikes me as something that citizens will come out and vote against.

We've also lost our ability to use the tax system for social benefit, for economic benefit, and that, in my opinion — and I've been saying so for some two years now — is the biggest flaw in this plan.

If we cannot as a subnational government on the corner of the Pacific Ocean, four-odd million people here in B.C., use our tax system to shift behaviour, whether it be in terms of healthier lifestyles, a more environmentally conscious lifestyle, or use the tax system to stimulate investment, to stimulate economic growth and development, then we're giving away one of the very few tools we have. That, in my opinion, is the biggest flaw in the plan that was hatched by the member for Quilchena and the former Premier, Gordon Campbell.

They said, back in 2009, days after our last provincial election…. Stay with me now. I'm going to get us to a point, hon. Speaker, and you're going to be comfortable with that. They said after the last election that they were going to bring this forward because it was the single most important thing they could do to stimulate economic development in British Columbia.

Well, here we are two years later, and I can't think of a single thing that has been more disastrous in the time of the B.C. Liberal government, and there is a litany of disasters. My friend from Nanaimo–North Cowichan was inventorying some of them earlier today. I can't think of a thing that has been more harmful to the economy and the people of British Columbia than the harmonized sales tax and the way it was implemented.

Today we are extinguishing a component of the Recall and Initiative Act….

Interjection.

J. Horgan: Stay with me now, Member. You won't get too many more opportunities. We've only got a couple more days to sit in this place.

[1625]

So we've only got a few more opportunities, hon. Speaker, to highlight the incompetence of the B.C. Liberal government, to highlight the ineptitude of a group of people that profess to understand the economy. They profess to understand the economy, yet they've put us through a wringer for two years — all for a $1.6 billion payment from the federal government. Now we're going to have to find that money and pay it back. Interesting, very interesting.

I look forward to hearing the wrap-up from the Attorney General. I know he's going to explain to the people of British Columbia that a referendum date is actually a five- or six-week window in his world. In my world, a referendum date is one day. You vote on that one day. Not so in the world of the Attorney General.

I look forward very much to him explaining to the public how it is that they have not broken a promise and that in fact the extinguishment of the date — which we're doing with this bill, of September 24 — and then a range of days sometime in the summer to extinguish this tax is in the public interest. I don't see it, but I look forward to the response from the minister.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Minister will close debate.

Hon. B. Penner: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Congratulations, as well, for your first time taking that position in this auspicious-looking chair. It, to me, has always looked rather uncomfortable because I don't believe it has the lower lumbar support that in my advanced age, I've discovered, is increasingly important and appreciated when it does appear on various chairs that I have the occasion to visit.

I would like to take this opportunity, just before I conclude and move second reading, to respond to a number of the comments. I'll start with the most recent comments first, the member for Juan de Fuca.

Why don't we just get these results on the same day as the vote takes place? We could do that if we stayed with the traditional "walk up to the ballot box" kind of vote such as took place yesterday in Canada. However, that process cost Canadians $300 million. Now given, it's a much larger geographic land base and a lot more people employed, but the cost of conducting the vote yesterday and the election process was $300 million.

In British Columbia, Elections B.C. has told us that if we had stayed on course with the date scheduled for September 24, with a traditional ballot-box vote, that would have cost $30 million. Moving to the mail-in ballot will save us at least $18 million. I'm hopeful that we'll actually save more than that.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

However, the reason we're saving that amount of money collectively as taxpayers is that Elections B.C. does not have to hire 37,000 people around the province to conduct the vote. It also means that since they aren't hiring 37,000 people and they're saving at least $18 million, they don't have 37,000 people to count the ballots. It will take some time, with their limited staff, to go through all the ballots and to do the verification that's required. That is the reason why we won't get the results in one day, as is wished by the member for Juan
[ Page 6555 ]
de Fuca. Our government is interested in saving taxpayers some money.

Another comment here…. I do have a number, so just bear with me as I close remarks. The member speaking shortly before the member for Juan de Fuca, the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan, made a remark that the HST was not progressive. If it was not progressive, then I doubt that the NDP in Nova Scotia would have actually increased the HST there by 2 full percentage points so that today it's 15 percent in Nova Scotia, compared to 12 percent in British Columbia.

Notwithstanding the fact that it's 15 percent in Nova Scotia, the NDP's national leader, Jack Layton, has repeatedly pointed to Nova Scotia and praised the HST, even though it's a full 3 percentage points higher than here in British Columbia. Surely, Mr. Layton would not be endorsing an HST at 15 percent if he felt it wasn't progressive.

Obviously it is progressive, and we've then put in place a number of low-income HST rebates, which the NDP Finance critic seemed to be unaware of last week, amounting to up to $230 per year for every man, woman and child that meets the threshold. That's something that is potentially in jeopardy, depending on the outcome of the referendum.

The member also repeatedly made mention of 700,000 signatures. In fact, Elections B.C. certified 558,000 signatures after the initiative process was concluded last summer. I'm just correcting that for the record.

[1630]

There were a number of remarks I've heard in second reading debate from members of the NDP saying that there needed to be fairness in funding for the various parties. In fact, I heard the member for Surrey-Newton say that we should give more money to the yes side.

Well, the yes side in this, I guess, would be those people wanting to maintain the HST, so I'm not sure if the member for Surrey-Newton really meant that we should be giving more money to the yes side, when in fact we're giving an equal amount of money to both sides, both yes and no. In fact, one of the things that we announced about two weeks ago was $500,000 that would be shared equally.

Some people have asked questions about who's going to make decisions about allocating that $500,000. Well, the hon. Stephen Owen, a former Ombudsman here in British Columbia, has taken on that job. I can announce to members that he has made his funding decisions, and as of yesterday Mr. Stephen Owen has announced that the funding will be shared equally between the Smart Tax Alliance and the Fight HST Society, after receiving applications from four parties, including the B.C. Federation of Labour and the Council of Senior Citizens Organizations of B.C.

The B.C. Federation of Labour was not successful in obtaining access to this $500,000, nor was the Council of Senior Citizens Organizations of B.C. A letter setting out the explanation for the decision that Mr. Owen reached about allocating the $500,000 was sent yesterday to the four parties involved.

I think that addresses the comments from some of the members opposite about who's going to decide who gets the money and if it will be fairly allocated. The answer is yes. It's going to be equally shared between the yes and the no sides. Those decisions were made yesterday by the hon. Stephen Owen — who, by the way, has taken on this job without any remuneration. He's doing this pro bono.

Again, a number of people have made comments about the date, moving the date forward. In fact, the member for Juan de Fuca, I think, misspoke himself. He said people will be voting until August. That is incorrect, and that's a dangerous thing to say, because I don't want people to be missing the opportunity to have their vote count.

In fact, the ballots must be received by July 22. I said that in my opening remarks at second reading, so I was disappointed to hear the member just a moment ago saying in fact people have until August to vote. That is not correct. Those ballots must be returned and received by Elections B.C. not later than 4:30 p.m. on July 22, or they will not count.

The vast majority of British Columbians will actually receive their ballots earlier than June 24, which was the goal, the date that Premier Clark had indicated. She wanted to have this referendum happening by June 24. In fact, most British Columbians will get their ballots before June 24, and they don't have to wait until June 24.

They can mark their ballot and return it as soon as they receive it, if that's what they prefer. Alternatively, if they happen to be away, if they want to take more time to read information or learn more about the implications of moving back to an overlapping provincial sales tax regime on top of a GST sales tax regime, they can take the time to do that, as long as those ballots are returned and received by Elections B.C. on July 22 at 4:30 p.m.

The member for Cariboo North made a number of comments, and I appreciated his comments. He's talked about the need to engage in a broader tax debate. He rightly pointed out that if we don't have the HST, what are the implications for other taxes? He mentioned the possibility of higher income taxes or a higher provincial sales tax if the HST were to be repealed following the referendum.

Now, taking a look at the announcement we made a couple of weeks ago, I think this addresses the comments by the member for Cariboo North, because in addition to the $500,000 of funding for the two sides in this debate, the government is also making available an extra $500,000, a second $500,000, to help sponsor a number of public debates and forums that will be hosted by universities, colleges and institutes around the province.

This will be a non-partisan effort. I'm sure that people showing up at those debates will have a particular perspective, but the forums themselves are meant to be
[ Page 6556 ]
neutral. That is what we're doing to engage the public in this debate about what the choices are. What are the tax implications, not just for the HST, but if not the HST, then what? What are the costs associated with that? What are the possible implications for funding social services if we don't have the revenue from the HST?

[1635]

The member for Columbia River–Revelstoke expressed what I can only put as some skepticism about government's intentions, saying that he expects the government to manipulate the process. I could just point out to that member that in fact, by moving to cancel the vote under the Recall and Initiative Act and instead moving to the Referendum Act, which is what our government wants to do, we're actually raising the bar.

It is actually more difficult to retain the HST, because if the vote were not cancelled on September 24 and if it were continue to take place as it would otherwise under the Recall and Initiative Act, you would require more than 50 percent of the total number of registered voters in British Columbia to vote in favour of the initiative and more than 50 percent of the total number of registered voters for each of at least two-thirds of the electoral districts in British Columbia to vote in favour of the initiative.

Many commentators have said that it was a very formidable bar to require that kind of a high threshold — a supermajority. Premier Christy Clark has indicated that we will hold this referendum on the basis of a simple majority. So 50 percent plus one of those people that show up to vote, not of registered voters but of those who show up to vote or take the time to mark their ballot and return it to Elections B.C. by the deadline — that will be the threshold that will determine the outcome and what we do on a go-forward basis.

Lastly, just to refer to the member for Vancouver-Hastings, who has joined us here today. He made a comment that said he didn't think that having spending limits would make any difference in terms of third-party advertising because he's confident that voters will vote to go back to some kind of other tax regime. But other members in his caucus were arguing that in fact, it would be important to have third-party spending limits.

I just note before concluding that that was not the position their party took when we introduced the election spending limits in 2008, and they opposed them.

With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. B. Penner: I move that Bill 4 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Bill 4, Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) Initiative Vote and Referendum 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. P. Bell: I call second reading of Bill 5, an act to implement the new west partnership trade agreement between British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan.

Bill 5 — new west partnership
trade agreement implementation act

Hon. P. Bell: I move that Bill 5 be read a second time now.

I am very pleased today to speak to Bill 5, an important step forward in building the new west partnership between Saskatchewan and Alberta.

[D. Black in the chair.]

If passed, Bill 5 will ensure that British Columbia is able to implement the new west partnership trade agreement. It will allow British Columbia to have the necessary statutory authority to fully exercise its rights and meet all of its obligations. It will provide statutory certainty over dispute resolution provisions and ensure that any awards and costs can be enforced.

Finally, Bill 5 amends provisions to the College of Applied Biology Act, ensuring the rules of the council of College of Applied Biology are compliant with the labour mobility provisions of this agreement. This means qualified biologists from all three provinces can choose where they want to work and raise their families.

The new west partnership is a trail-blazing agreement. The new west partnership creates an unparalleled, open and competitive marketplace that will increase opportunities for business and workers and attract new investment to western Canada. It has, in effect, created a barrier-free region of nine million people, with an economic size or gross domestic product of half a trillion dollars, an amount that surpasses all but about 20 countries in the world.

Bill 5 actually has four key elements in terms of its implementation. The first one is that it removes the remaining trade barriers to investment and labour mobility between the three provinces — B.C., Alberta and Saskatchewan — much the way the TILMA agreement did between British Columbia and Alberta. It creates a very strong, competitive environment in western Canada.

Secondly, it creates a procurement agreement that allows our provinces to capitalize on the combined purchasing power of all three provinces. In fact, on April 20, 2011, it was announced that the partners of the new west partnership trade agreement will be working to centralize health care purchasing across the three provinces, creating a very large critical mass.

Thirdly, an international cooperation agreement on trade and investment missions to international markets. Already I can tell you that the three provinces have
[ Page 6557 ]
worked together to break into the Asian marketplace, and it's been very positive. In fact, an MOU was signed to promote the west's energy sector, which includes a strategy to target opportunities in Asia.

[1640]

Fourthly, there's an innovation agreement, which enables our provincial jurisdictions to work together on new innovations in a more coordinated fashion, which will, we believe, allow for the development of new technologies in a much more efficient manner.

The new west partnership strengthens western Canada's international reach with enhanced cooperation on overseas trade missions and on foreign marketing, as I've mentioned. The most significant benefit of this agreement, though, is that it will provide more secure access to other provincial markets for business and investors.

Taxpayers in the three provinces, workers, business and organizations will see their tax dollars used more efficiently as the three governments work together. Together, western Canada is spurring on the Canadian economy and creating a market that is attractive to investors and enhancing families. I hope everyone here today supports me in joining in the support of Bill 5, and we continue to build a British Columbia that creates jobs and prosperity.

J. Kwan: Madam Speaker, congratulations. It's a wonderful view from here.

I am happy to enter into debate on Bill 5, the New West Partnership Trade Agreement Implementation Act. Essentially this bill, as I call it, is really what is known as the son of TILMA. This is a bill that really follows in lockstep with TILMA. TILMA is the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement. That was actually signed back in April of 2006 between British Columbia and Alberta.

Members in this House will recall that when TILMA was first tabled, we actually learned about it through what I think was a secret meeting between the Alberta cabinet and that of the former Premier, Gordon Campbell. Then arising out of that secret cabinet meeting was TILMA.

TILMA, in fact, has far-reaching implications for businesses, for local businesses, for local governments, for the labour community and for professional certification standards. Basically, communities across British Columbia would be impacted by TILMA in a significant way.

TILMA came into effect on April 1, 2007. We will remember in this House that that was before the Campbell government had even passed any legislation to implement the agreement or to enforce its penalties.

How about that for you, Madam Speaker? The Campbell government brings in a law that has huge implications for communities across British Columbia. It was not debated in this House. It was a secret arrangement that was done in Alberta, and it came into effect without us even passing legislation. Talk about a government that will trump the authority of this House to get its work done, and that is the B.C. Liberal government and its record.

So here we are dealing with TILMA. TILMA has been rejected by the province of Manitoba and, back then in 2007, rejected by Saskatchewan as well. Instead, they chose to move to improve internal trade between provinces. Through the summer of 2007 first ministers meeting in Moncton, Canada's Premiers back then…. Instead, they moved towards a national strategy, as proposed by the Manitoba government at the time.

At the time the Saskatchewan government…. Former Premier Calvert actually raised some concerns around TILMA and raised the issues around the need for consultation to engage with the public to fully understand the implications, to fully do the analysis around the issues related to it. That, of course, was not done. So it was rejected.

As time sort of marches on, here we are back again, and we now have the son of TILMA through this revamped bill called the New West Partnership Trade Agreement Implementation Act. Now, you might ask: what exactly does TILMA do?

TILMA commits B.C. and Alberta to ensure that its measures do not restrict or impair trade, investment or labour mobility between the provinces. On the face of it, you'd think that sounds really good. Who would want to stop economic activity? Who would want to stop the ability of the different people in the different professions to be able to work in different provinces, and so on and so forth?

[1645]

But beyond the face of that, you have to ask the question: what are the real implications? You have to look beyond the shiny, bright words. You really do, in order to understand what the implications may be.

Here's what I understand some of the implications are. It prohibits any business subsidies that distort investment, and its labour mobility provisions erase differing standards for regulating professions.

You may say, "Oh well, that's okay," but of course, the issue here is this, in terms of mobility and in terms of standards. You could actually very well be in a situation where you're going to race to the bottom. You can actually inadvertently lose standards that are important and pertinent, that are set up for British Columbia for specific reasons. Then, through this process, you would actually lose that protection, and that would not be in the interests of British Columbians.

TILMA is extremely broad, as I've mentioned. It assumes that everything is covered by it, except those areas that are designated specifically excluded. So unless the agreement itself specifies a specific area for it to be excluded, then everything else is game. So the scope of it is actually quite enormous. The requirements are that any new measures must be proven to be….

In the agreement it says "the least restrictive possible." You have to think: what exactly does that mean? Nobody knows, and that's the whole point. Nobody really knows what that means and what those impli-
[ Page 6558 ]
cations are, particularly for local governments, for the university sector, for the school boards — what we call the SUCH sectors — the hospitals, etc. There could be huge implications for them as well.

In fact, local governments, back when TILMA was introduced, raised enough concern that through the UBCM process — which is the Union of B.C. Municipalities, a collection of all the local governments across British Columbia — they came together, and they passed a resolution. They passed a resolution that, in my view, basically resoundingly rejected TILMA, because they were worried about the implications of TILMA for local governments.

From there, an analysis came about. The Lidstone analysis came about regarding the concerns for local governments from UBCM. They wanted the government to either make changes to the agreement to more specifically address local government concerns or to remove local governments altogether from the agreement or to request the province withdraw from the agreement entirely. That's really their point of view.

Of course, the government didn't do that, and the Lidstone analysis came forward. The general concerns around that centre around these issues. They felt that the TILMA, the language of the agreement, was too vague so that people don't really know what the implications are. It's full of ambiguities. It lacked any precedent. Of course, people don't know what, again, the precedent-setting implications are.

It has an effect for local governments, particularly as local governments are trying to deal with local procurement practices that would want to cater to job promotion, perhaps, in their own local communities for economic development purposes. This could be challenged — right? This could challenge them, I should say, in terms of their effort.

It's basically our concerns around retooling of local government's measures to satisfy TILMA in the case of a breach. In the case of a breach, local governments could be sued. They could be sued for huge sums of money. Local governments, of course, as you know…. Their tax base is based on property taxes, so they have a very limited scope in terms of tax base. If they should be sued in breach of this agreement, all of a sudden their ratepayers would be on the hook for something that they don't even agree with, that they didn't want to begin with.

How do you manage something like that? Imagine that for a small community, in rural communities where the tax base is actually quite small, in the struggling communities where they already have employment challenges, where they already have resource issues, etc., and what those implications might be. Rightfully, local governments were concerned, and they raised these issues.

[1650]

They came forward with the Lidstone analysis. They criticized the agreement, saying that the procurement thresholds were far too low to really allow for meaningful procurement practices that promoted economic development initiatives in the local area targeted towards the local communities. The study also said that it may result in banning assistance to local government that is now being provided.

For example, the two-year Community Charter process was in place, and that actually allowed for some local government assistance in the area of heritage, local government improvements, and so on. Would those sorts of programs be in violation of TILMA, for example? Would it be seen as a tax incentive in some way that sort of truncates the TILMA process? Those were some of the concerns that they had raised.

Reconciliation requirements for standards and regulations could also be contrary to local policy. The Lidstone analysis cites that as an example.

In the GVRD, the greater Vancouver regional district, meth labs, grow ops, second-hand goods stores, massage parlours, escort services, fireworks sales, smoking, store hours, business building, scenic view maintenance, economic development and sign bylaws were some of the areas where they were worried about the implication with TILMA, and they wanted to have some clarity on that. That's one of the reasons why they, of course, opposed, I think, the TILMA agreement.

There are other issues as well. In the dispute resolution, as I mentioned, local governments do not have the express right to defend measures, nor do they have the right to necessarily attend the TILMA panel hearings on the measures in dispute. Unlike the AIT, the province can enforce TILMA on local governments. So even on that measure, where you could be challenged by a proponent on this issue — the panel hearings, etc. — the dispute process could also exclude you. That was something that local governments were very concerned about.

At the end of the day, what does it mean? It means that in the case of a dispute, a local government could be challenged up to $5 million in penalty. As I said, this is huge in terms of its impact for local governments and particularly for those that are in the small communities.

The minister is actually responsible for jobs — the ministry of everything, it seems like. We'll be starting the estimates fairly quickly, I think tomorrow, for the minister. What are the implications of this in terms of jobs, in terms of the local incentive issues? These are valid questions that I think people have.

The TILMA proposal, as we now know, of course, has passed and is out there. It's not fully implemented in the sense that we don't know the implications of that just yet. I know the minister might get up and simply say: "Hey, you know what? There has been nothing — nothing — since it's been implemented. All is well." But it's too early to say. It's not really fully implemented. We don't know what the implications are just yet.

Yet we're already on stream to bring in yet another agreement in expanding this — in spite of the fact that there
[ Page 6559 ]
were issues and concerns that were raised by local governments and from different sectors, that people felt there was not enough consultation, that it was not open and transparent in the process by which TILMA came about.

So here we are dealing with Bill 5, the New West Partnership Trade Agreement Implementation Act, effectively bringing TILMA into force and effect as they apply to Alberta to Saskatchewan.

Saskatchewan, interestingly, in fact wanted Crown corporations to be exempted from this agreement at the time when they were dealing with the TILMA discussion. They wanted the tax incentive issues, the local procurement incentive issues that I was talking about, also exempted. I could only assume, now that we have an agreement with Saskatchewan, that those things would have been exempted, because that's what the Premier of Saskatchewan had said on the public record that he wanted. I would have thought, then, that this is what this bill is. But it isn't.

It's strange to me. I could be wrong on this, but it's strange to me, because this is basically an agreement that brings those provisions into place as well. It does not exempt Crown corporations. It does not exempt those tax incentives, etc. It does not adequately address these issues. So you have to ask: why, then, are we dealing with this debate?

[1655]

As I understand, the Saskatchewan community, the people from Saskatchewan, from the news reports and so on, have also come forward to say that there has not been enough consultation on this agreement, that they don't know what the implications are, and they're worried about it. There have been loads and loads of articles that have been put on the Internet that are actually floating out there in the communities around that.

The NDP — opposition now — of Saskatchewan also criticized this agreement as well. We share those concerns. We do. We share those concerns here in British Columbia, and so together we've got to ask this question.

If we're going to be doing due diligence in our work, if we're going to be expanding an agreement that has huge implications, then we should do our homework. We should have full understanding of it. That's what a prudent government would do. That's what a responsible government would do. That's what an accountable government would do.

They would not sign these kinds of agreements behind closed doors, without transparency. They most certainly would not do this without consultation. They most certainly would not leave local governments behind, because they are the backbone of our communities. They form the basis of who we are in each and every neighbourhood throughout British Columbia.

We cannot do this work without crossing our t's and dotting our i's, because that's what responsible governments do, yet here we are dealing with yet another new TILMA bill, the son of TILMA, for Saskatchewan. In my opinion, we have not done the work that needed to be done. We have not set aside the concerns that have been raised. Until we do, I have to say I would rather want to be prudent.

I would say that we should stand down this bill. We should actually listen to the community. We should canvass far and wide.

The Council of Canadians have voiced a lot of opinions about this. The CCPA have also voiced their opinions about this, and all of the concerns centre around what local governments have already put on the public record.

I think we should join forces with the community to have full understanding on the implications of this agreement before we adopt it in this House, and if it needs to go back to the drawing board, then that's what we should do.

M. Sather: It's my pleasure to join the debate at second reading on Bill 5, the New West Partnership Trade Agreement Implementation Act. I hadn't heard about this act before it was presented. I was a bit taken aback. I wasn't sure what "New West" meant. I thought it meant New Westminster at first, but clearly, it doesn't, Madam Speaker. I know that is your home territory.

This is meant to be grand and grandiose almost, I guess — the "New West." So that is curious insofar as this bill, this agreement, follows the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement — or TILMA, as it's called for short — which was consummated between the provinces of British Columbia and Alberta in 2009 and which I had occasion to examine fairly extensively.

It's curious to…. As I think back on TILMA and now this bill, which extends to Saskatchewan — so it's Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan….

What is it all about? In many respects, it seems like much ado about nothing, an agreement that doesn't really go anywhere. But we'll explore that a little further — I hope to in the time that I have — and examine whether in fact it does have merit or what kind of intent this agreement has.

My overall impression of TILMA and now the New West Partnership Trade Agreement is that they're a continuation of the deregulation agenda of this government. There's no doubt about that. I know the minister spoke about working together, common purchasing, trade missions together between the three provinces. Well, that's fine, but you don't need an agreement of this complexity and extent to do those things.

[1700]

What it in fact does do…. It's certainly led, as the previous speaker said, to a great degree of consternation amongst members of the public and interest groups as to what it does mean.

Sometimes it's interesting to look at some of the statements that are made by the adherents to an agreement such as the one that was made last year by Brad Wall, the
[ Page 6560 ]
Premier of Saskatchewan; Ed Stelmach, the Premier of Alberta; and Gordon Campbell, the former Premier of British Columbia. They were talking about this agreement. One of the things that they mentioned was, "We believe in one project, one process for environmental assessment. Our current system forces projects to undergo repetitive dual environment assessment reviews at both the provincial and the federal level. This unnecessary overlap is wasteful," and so on.

Well, that is a mantra that we do hear quite a bit, have heard quite a bit about from this government over the last year — the one project, one process. Christy Clark, of course, weighed in on that very issue around the Prosperity mine proposal, which was turned down by the federal government, the Harper government, and which she roundly denounced as being ridiculous and that she would forthwith renegotiate.

Well, Mr. Harper is now in a majority position, so I wish her lots of luck with that one. He indicated pretty clearly to her that there wasn't going to be a negotiation. But I think what was more disturbing to a lot of folks in the province is that, one, she didn't seem to have any understanding of the environmental process in British Columbia, which is fraught with inadequacies; and secondly, the federal process found a very different outcome, came to a very different conclusion about that project than the government of British Columbia did through our environmental assessment process.

So what does that say about one project, one process? I guess it means that you just go with the one that Christy Clark thinks is cool, but it certainly gives anyone with a concern about the environment pause for thought about where the three provinces may be going with this agreement.

Another thing they mentioned in this little release, this op-ed…. Getting into federal issues, but this is what they said: "Canada needs a true open skies policy. A shift to open skies would cost taxpayers nothing."

Well, I don't know if the members opposite have had the experience of travelling on Southwest Airlines. I mean, I wouldn't want to. These are the guys that take off with all kinds of rivets in the plane dangling from the wings, are sent back to the airport, give it a quick fix, and away they go again.

I had friends of mine talk to me about flying on this particular airline, and you know, it was pretty frightening. They came back to the airport and said: "We've got a big problem." Ten minutes later, they were up in the air again. They have been brought to task by the regulator a number of times in the United States.

So when the government says a shift to open skies would cost taxpayers nothing, it could in fact cost them their lives. But that means then that if you want to address issues like that, you have to be open to regulating, and this government has made it clear — and they make it clear again through pieces of legislation like this — that it's all red tape, and they want to get rid of it. So that gives us on this side, anyway, some cause for concern.

[1705]

Now, that same release made a comment. "We cannot afford to allow internal borders to stifle opportunity or permit antiquated ways of thinking to continue." This is the same thing they talked about in TILMA — that there were, quite futilely, I have to say…. There really aren't any significant interprovincial barriers to trade between our provinces.

I know the minister responsible at the time struggled to come up with examples of barriers to trade. He would repetitively talk about the issue of the trucks that came across the border with the bales of hay and how they had to readjust their load once they got across. That was about it. It wasn't a heck of a lot else that he came up with.

Similarly, in this particular instance where Saskatchewan is being also included, the Premier there said: "Well, if you're taking your cattle from Saskatchewan into Alberta or British Columbia, you have to get them reinspected." Well, that may be a wasteful exercise, in fact, if you've already had your cattle inspected, but that's it? That's about it that you have as a trade barrier? There aren't any significant trade barriers.

It's a myth that the government continues to put forward, which leads me to continue to wonder what's in it for the government. What is this really all about? That's why I said it seems like in many ways looking at it that it's much ado about not much. The Standing Committee on the Economy in Saskatchewan, when they looked at the agreement, also said that there were few interprovincial barriers to trade between the provinces.

I looked around, and I haven't seen any evidence yet of any disputes that have taken place under TILMA. It hasn't been there that long, but obviously, if there were a whole lot of problems, you'd think people would have been rounding up some complaints and put them…. After all, there are some significant penalty provisions in TILMA and also in the new west partnership trade agreement. But none have come forward. So what does that mean? Does it mean that there aren't problems, or does it mean something else?

Speculating perhaps, but it seems to me that perhaps part of the impetus, the reason, for these agreements is the chill effect. You get people thinking: "Well, you know what? We've got a heavy hammer, and the government…." We've also already got an interprovincial trade agreement throughout the country, an agreement on internal trade, but it doesn't have the big penalties that TILMA has or that this agreement has, so that has been touted as one of the good reasons. That can be kind of a chilling effect on anyone, I guess, if you're looking at having to pay millions of dollars in fines.

Now, there is the potential under the bill, under the investor rights of these bills, to give large businesses and corporations — individuals, for that matter, be-
[ Page 6561 ]
cause they can enter into this dispute, which is unlike the agreement on internal trade, which is between governments…. This one can also include individuals, as TILMA could, and you wonder where they might exercise those considerable investor rights that are envisioned — or not only envisioned but encompassed — within both of those agreements.

One of the issues that I brought up — and I think the minister was going to challenge me about it but didn't later on — was the issue of the agricultural land reserve, which is not exempted from either TILMA or this deal, and how that could affect whether an investor feels that their rights…. If it restricts investment — and investment is a very wide field — there is the potential under these agreements to bring a case that your investor rights have been discriminated against, I guess you would say.

[1710]

Now, the government did bring in a bill in 2009 in response to the labour mobility issue. Of the issues at play here — trade, investment and labour mobility — it seems that labour mobility has more meat to it, insofar as the government brought in a special act called the Labour Mobility Act. It's TILMA-related and related to this agreement.

Again, it's a deregulation piece of legislation. In essence, it says that training doesn't mean much. If you're trained at a higher level, it doesn't mean too much, because if somebody else from one of these provinces moves in and they're trained to a lesser level, then it's okay. I think that's a real concern with regard not only to safety in the workplace but to competence and the ability of our workforce to be flexible, to be able to move from one job to another, to have a higher level of skills.

Under that, this government did away with the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission, and they brought in another system. There were concerns expressed by the Auditor General at that time that the bill would further weaken national standards for the construction trades.

I don't know if this is where they're going to go in Saskatchewan and where they're going in Alberta, but you pretty much have to, under these agreements. It's harmonization, by any other word. It's bringing your standards such that no one is impeded from moving from one province to another. Certainly, there are some instances where there probably are unwieldy or even unnecessary regulations, but I think these agreements are a really heavy hammer to deal with, generally, a relatively small issue.

The former speaker mentioned the MASH sector — the municipalities, the educational institutions, social services and health. Now, that's a huge swath of folks and has a great effect on the lives of everyone throughout Canada. They aren't subject to this agreement. I mean, they didn't sign this agreement, but they are subject to it.

The lower monetary thresholds for procurement — you know, getting contracts to get things done and to obtain the products they need — mean that there'll be more out-of-province contracts. Local procurement pretty much contravenes this agreement.

It prevents governments from being creative and from engaging in new activities, and certainly these agencies. The procurement limits are much higher in the agreement on internal trade, so that just means a lot more paperwork that these agencies have to do. In effect, there may be more red tape in some respects.

The two agreements are very similar. Reconciliation of municipal business licences is not required under this agreement. But I have some similarities and some complaints about the way this bill was brought in, without public consultation. That was a big concern when TILMA was brought in here in British Columbia — that there was a lack of consultation.

[1715]

The nature of the trade dispute panels is such that it takes away decision-making, potentially important decisions, from government, which is the people, and places it in the hands of appointed individuals. Individuals under this agreement and under TILMA can also challenge governments.

Again, I think that has a chill effect, and maybe that is the intended effect rather than it ever being used frequently. However, you know, NAFTA is not invoked that frequently either, but when it is, when these trade agreements are invoked, they are significant. They can be. They're in law or the effect of law, so they can have long-lasting and widespread repercussions.

Unlike the agreement on internal trade, there's no process to screen frivolous complaints or harassing kinds of complaints, which many see as problematic with these agreements. Any policies that local governments want to bring in to support the regional economic development can be challenged. They can be challenged, and they may be challenged, or maybe the whole thing is going to be, as I say, not amounting to much of anything.

I don't believe that this government, nor the governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan, have gone to all the trouble to bring in these agreements unless, in fact, they have some intention that they will have a real effect. When you hear them talk about it, when you hear some of the backgrounders and the like that they write and where their thinking goes, it's broad-based to say the least.

So we wait to see the result, but again, as with TILMA, we're not in favour of this agreement. With that, I'll take my place and allow the next person to speak.

K. Corrigan: Madam Speaker, it's wonderful to see you in that chair. I'm sure you're going to do a wonderful job.

I'm speaking on Bill 5, the New West Partnership Trade Agreement Implementation Act. It implements what is essentially the inclusion of Saskatchewan into the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement, or TILMA, signed a few years ago by Alberta and British Columbia.
[ Page 6562 ]

The interprovincial agreements — TILMA, the new west agreement, the agreement on internal trade — join and mesh with a whole range of international agreements that Canada has signed — agreements like NAFTA, the General Agreement on Trade in Services, and so on. These new treaties, including the one that we're discussing today, are far more than mere trade agreements. On the contrary, they reach to the very core of the ability of government to regulate activities within their respective territories.

Uncertainty about the implications of trade liberalization has been further heightened by the reliance upon unaccountable dispute resolution panels to interpret the intricacies and ambiguities of these complex treaties, and people do not understand these treaties, for the most part. While interpretation may vary from case to case, the undemocratic compromises embedded in these agreements are very clear. They create rules that bind future and present governments. They are administered by non-elected bureaucrats, and they are arbitrated by tribunals without representation from the government that is directly affected by the decisions.

For example, if a municipality in British Columbia was challenged on its licensing bylaws or on a zoning bylaw, or challenged by a corporation under this most recent agreement, the municipality itself is not represented at the tribunal hearings. Instead, the interests of that municipality are represented by the province of British Columbia.

[1720]

Frankly, certainly at the UBCM, one of the concerns that was expressed strongly by the UBCM and its member municipalities is that they did not have faith that this government would vigorously support and present their interests when there were challenges that would directly affect their ability to legislate in a way, or make rules in a way, that they think is good for their own citizens.

If you don't believe my take on what the essence is of these international, national and provincial trade agreements, then how about Brian Mulroney's take on it. He's a big conservative hero, I'm sure, to at least half of the coalition on the other side of the aisle.

Brian Mulroney was surprisingly candid about the new policy directions represented by the variety of trade agreements. He said: "If you believe in free trade, then you have to believe in open investment, and you have to believe in deregulation, and you have to believe in privatization." And he talked about getting rid of the national energy program, privatizing Air Canada, privatizing Canadair, Petro-Canada and so on. And he said it's that and deregulation and all those things.

So Brian Mulroney, an architect of NAFTA, said clearly that trade agreements — and it would include this most recent agreement — whether it be NAFTA or whether it be the New West Partnership Trade Agreement Implementation Act, are about deregulation and privatization. Or as Thomas Barrett, who is a director of the European Investment Bank, said about these agreements: "The key is identifying and eliminating legal and institutional bottlenecks." Well, what do we mean by bottlenecks? We mean any public policy measures that could be interpreted as imposing an unnecessary regulatory burden upon investors.

So broadly put, the ultimate aim of international, on these subnational trade agreements, is not to enhance trade per se, but rather to provide corporations with unfettered access to global markets and resources. At the extreme, every law that government makes, every tax, every public subsidy, every regulation — including zoning, standards, requirements, licensing requirements, policies and prohibitions — represents a potential impediment to unrestricted trade.

Under these agreements, only those that can be proven — the onus being on the challenged government — to not be unnecessarily burdensome according to the standards set by negotiated agreements in unaccountable tribunals will be free from challenge.

In short, I think they're a corporate bill of rights that increasingly decrease the public policy room that governments have of acting in what they believe is in the best interests of their citizens.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

So why do we have these local agreements — like the agreement on internal trade, the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement or TILMA, and now the new west partnership trade agreement? I agree with my colleague; I'm going to think of New Westminster every time I read that name. It's where the Speaker is from.

Why did they do this? Partly because they are needed in order for Canada to comply with the obligations they have undertaken on behalf of all of us, without negotiation, at the international level. So these layers act one upon the other, creating a web of rules and restrictions that limit government's ability to act in what it considers to be the best interests of its citizens.

When Canada signs an international agreement, it commits not just itself as a federal entity, but it also commits the provinces, municipalities, school boards and other government entities — that they will comply with those agreements. No consultation with local governments. No consultation with school boards or the MASH sector. Negotiations behind closed doors. No consultation, no discussions, with the municipality or school boards that ultimately will be constricted by the agreements.

[1725]

So what is Bill 5? Well, this brings into law the new west partnership agreement, which we mentioned, which means that Saskatchewan-based corporations and investors will now be able to join Alberta-based companies in suing the province of British Columbia for public policies they disagree with or think will disadvantage them.
[ Page 6563 ]
B.C. can be sued for actions of entities. It's responsible, as I said, like municipalities and school districts. By adding Saskatchewan companies to the mix, it means a larger list of companies are able to take action against B.C., and I think this will drive down standards and regulations.

It was a funny thing that when Brad Wall, the now Premier of Saskatchewan, was in opposition, he said that a Saskatchewan Party government would not sign on to TILMA, the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement between Alberta and British Columbia. So what did they do? They changed the name. Instead of calling it TILMA, it's now called the new west partnership trade agreement.

It's the same agreement. It has almost exactly the same provisions. Madam Speaker, I guess you can't say that a rose by any other name…. Maybe more like a skunk cabbage by any other name smells just as bad.

Sadly, the people of Saskatchewan, like the people of British Columbia, have learned with the HST that extreme governments whose primary motivation is to serve their corporate friends and insiders will say one thing before an election and do the opposite after the election. As Erin Weir said, this arrangement is a back door for Saskatchewan to join Alberta and B.C. in the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement.

So why didn't Saskatchewan sign on to TILMA, now the new west partnership agreement, until Brad Wall reneged on his promise? Well, there is a whole range of issues that were raised in hearings by the standing committee on the economy. In June of 2007 they held public hearings and examined the value of joining the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement signed between Alberta and British Columbia in April 2006. During nine days of hearings, the committee heard from 81 representatives from 47 organizations and received 91 submissions. The submissions and the presentations overwhelmingly opposed Saskatchewan signing on to this agreement.

You know, it's odd. I remember when TILMA was announced. I don't recall that any businesses asked for TILMA. This was simply motivated by government. This was not business asking for trade impediments to be removed. I certainly don't remember anything in the public discourse. Of course, it was done behind closed doors, so who knows? Perhaps there was some pressure there from businesses.

One of the claims of TILMA and this agreement now is that it would liberalize trade investment and labour mobility, resulting in huge economic benefits and advantages and so on. Well, you know, I have a real concern about that. One, the demand for the trade agreement has less to do with trade than with deregulation and privatization, as I earlier said.

Already internal trade has flowed with relative ease, since there's no customs or tariffs between provinces. We have a common Canadian currency. Our legal, economic and financial institutions use the same framework. Canadians are free to work and live anywhere in the country. Any small irritants that there are, or were, to trade can certainly be addressed on an individual basis. I don't know why we need to take a sledgehammer that's had such negative implications to address any small irritants that there are.

Here are some of the things that can be disputed under TILMA, since they restrict or impair investment. That is one of the provisions of TILMA and therefore this agreement. It is included in this as well — that provisions that restrict investment can be challenged. It's things like land use planning, including limits on residential and commercial development; zoning bylaws that prevent urban or commercial sprawl; green space requirements in urban development projects; restrictions on building height, noise, pesticide and sign bylaws; heritage and cultural site protection; environmental assessment projects.

[1730]

There are so many things, and one of our problems with these agreements is that it takes years and years to know exactly what the impact of the agreements is going to be, because you don't know until a challenge has been taken and it's been disposed of, has been decided on by the tribunal. Only at that point will we know what the impact is going to be. But certainly, it does create a chilling effect on municipalities, and I'll give you an example of that in just a couple of minutes.

The process is binding. It's a binding resolution, and the implications for municipalities are pretty severe. An unelected dispute resolution panel forms a TILMA tribunal authorized to make binding decisions. That's the process. No qualifications are required for panel members, who may be ill-equipped to deal with the complexity of public policy, law and administration.

The monetary penalty that's associated is $5 million, and while it is the challenged province which, at the moment, is required to pay that, there is no guarantee that the provincial government will not move to try to download that penalty onto local governments. I'm sure there'll be a lot of pressure. I'm not sure how that will play out.

The costs associated with this process are very significant. Municipalities will be forced to put forward arguments that, again, will be very expensive, and the cost of implementation is expensive for municipalities as well. There's a significant cost associated with municipalities having to put all their contracts, which are part of this, on line and open them up completely.

Another aspect of this agreement which is troubling to many of us and, certainly, to many municipalities is that the agreement restricts the use of subsidies and procurement policies that promote local economic development. You know, it's fine. If the provincial government wants to come out and be honest and say that their intention is to not allow people to promote local buying, then that's fine. But let's be honest about it, because that's what this agreement is about.
[ Page 6564 ]

Municipalities, particularly in tough economic times, want to have the ability to look after their local interests. We haven't yet had a confrontation on a local preference issue, but we will.

But the whole idea, which municipalities have and many of us have and think is a good idea, of buying locally runs contrary to the whole purpose of TILMA. We're supposed to be big B.C. boosters, but we're not allowed to put in a preference for local producers or manufacturers. Again, if the provincial government wants to be upfront and say they don't believe in local preference — because that is the truth that's in this agreement — then let the public know that that's what government wants to do and that's what they believe in.

There are very good reasons to support local business. In my community we have the Heights Merchants Association. The Heights support each other. The businesses support each other. Why shouldn't municipal governments, local governments, be able to do the same thing?

The issue is not always what the lowest price is, and that is what this agreement imposes on municipalities. It must be the lowest price. Either you support local businesses and therefore local communities, or you don't.

I want to give you one example, a practical example, of a municipality in British Columbia that has been affected by the new west partnership agreement recently. The community of Summerland recently put its garbage collection contract out to tender. It was awarded to an international company named BFI. The officials in the community said: "Yes, it went to an international conglomerate, BFI, but we are required by the rules of this new agreement to award the contract to BFI."

[1735]

Now, admittedly, the contract price was lower than what the local company that had been offering the service for years had bid. It was lower. But according to the company that lost the bid and some people in the community, it was a predatory bid. Their price was below the break-even point. It's 20 percent lower than what they'd bid in other communities.

Here's a comment by Andy Tiel of Summerland Waste. He said that the wages paid by BFI are lower than the wages paid by his company, and he said: "This town is going to lose two or three young couples because they can't pay their mortgages on what they're paying."

Here you have a government that says it's supposed to be concerned about families. Here you have a community that made the decision that it was required to put this out to tender, and it was required to follow the provisions of the new west partnership trade agreement — specifically said that. They quoted the provisions in the agreement and said that the municipality could have faced legal action had it not followed the agreement.

We have families in Summerland being hurt by the fact that this small local company, which was providing excellent service, lost the contract. A principal with the company said: "Our company relied 100 percent on local people to perform all the services for the residential contract." She said: "Summerland has lost at least six full-time jobs and numerous part-time jobs. The spinoff effect on our business and our employees who live in the community will be dramatic."

Here are several families in Summerland that will lose good local jobs as a result of an agreement that Premier Clark has ordered to be legislated into existence by Bill 5.

Finally, I wanted to just spend a minute talking about the impact on Crown corporations and go back to Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan is very proud of its Crown corporations, and this was a huge issue in Saskatchewan. Premier Wall repeatedly said that he would not sign an agreement that includes the Crown corporations. Yet after saying that over and over, he did sign an agreement that does cover the Crown corporations.

TILMA can preclude the expansion of the existing Crowns. TILMA, and now this agreement, preclude the creation of new Crowns, constrain the activities of monopoly Crowns and expose Saskatchewan to binding disputes brought by private individuals and corporations against the activities of the Crown corporations that are alleged to violate the agreement.

As Jim Grieshaber-Otto explains: "By their very nature, Crown corporations are designed specifically to serve the public interest of the citizens of Saskatchewan. In doing so, they necessarily restrict or impair the ability of private investors from elsewhere to invest and profit from doing things that are now done by the Crowns in the public interest."

As economist Erin Weir points out: "Since Saskatchewan has a much wider array of Crown corporations than Alberta and B.C., it is committing much more. For example, Alberta and B.C. businesses will gain a legally enforceable right to access SaskTel's procurement. But Saskatchewan businesses will have no parallel right to access procurement by TELUS, the main telephone company in Alberta and B.C."

I have a huge number of concerns with this agreement. I have a large number of concerns about the impact that it's going to have on local governments, who are unable to represent themselves and defend themselves and will rely instead on this provincial government to represent them in these challenges.

I think the web of these agreements is getting smaller and smaller and more and more restrictive for municipalities and the ability of municipalities, school boards and provincial governments to act in the best interests, in the public interest, of the people of British Columbia.

[1740]

B. Simpson: As others have spoken before me, I'm still a little confused as to the nature of the trade agreements that we have with the other two provinces and what the benefits are relative to some of the traps and restrictions.
[ Page 6565 ]

But I want to speak for a moment about a phrase that particularly applies to this bill, though it applies to every bill that comes into this House. This is Bill 5, but this phrase is in every bill that we get in this Legislature, and it reads: "Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent" — by and with the advice and consent — "of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia, enacts as follows."

Therein lies one of the most fundamental problems that I have experienced as a legislator — that we actually don't get to give advice and consent on the framing of legislation. What we get is, and in this case in particular, that the government has already entered into the agreement. The agreement was drafted, as was TILMA before it. All of the aspects of the agreement are already signed and agreed to, and we get this little bill that puts the agreement in place.

The bill starts with "with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia," and that's really why our democratic process is grinding down, why MLAs and MPs feel as if they're no longer a part of the process. The real process is that rather than coming to legislators and saying, "We need a committee. We need something…."

We used to have special committees on trade. We used to have special committees that did work in advance of a bill, which actually helped to engage British Columbians in the formulation of the bill. Then that bill came into the House. There are many parliaments that operate under those terms now.

Instead, what we get now is a deal finished behind closed doors without advice and consent from the people elected to this chamber. We then get that deal struck into a bill that's already printed on the order paper and in front of us. Then we get what amounts, effectively, to political debate in advance of clause-by-clause, and of course, the deal, just like TILMA, is not actually available for clause-by-clause debate.

What we have are some statements about how that agreement is going to operate, but we don't actually get to have the agreement in this House and to go through clause by clause with that agreement. We get political debate, we get some questions asked, and then the deal, which is already in place, is done.

I think that's why many British Columbians, many Canadians, are just booking out of the democratic system. There was no public consultation phase in the structuring of this deal. There wasn't an opportunity, and I know UBCM has reacted to these deals. There was no opportunity for that deeper consultation to look at some of the restrictions, some of the aspects of this deal that do cause grief.

I think, from a parliamentary perspective, this business of advice and consent actually needs to deepen. I do believe that we should be able to take legislation out where it has broad-reaching implications, like trade agreements like this one — to take it out and seek advice as legislators on how to make these agreements more effective and to consult more broadly with the public.

In this case, it's far-reaching in terms of who needs to be involved. The labour movement is part of this. The investment community is part of this. Municipal governments, school districts and health authorities are part of this. Regional economic development is part of this. This is a far-reaching set of constraints and agreements between the three provinces that impinge on a broad array of individuals and groups in the province that have not had the opportunity to give advice and consent. Nor have we.

So what's in the agreement? As speakers before me have indicated, I really struggle, as I did with TILMA, on what the nature of these agreements is and why we are entering into them.

Supposedly, the gut of the agreement is to remove barriers. As other MLAs have indicated, I'm not quite sure how deep or how extensive any of those barriers were in the first place. I'm not certain that that's really what's at play here.

[1745]

Joint ventures between the three provinces to go overseas and to attract people to come and to purchase our natural resources — I believe that one such trade mission has already occurred. Everybody patted themselves on the back. But from a public policy perspective, British Columbia is actually in competition for extracting and selling our natural resources into the global marketplace, and one of our biggest competitors on a lot of those natural resources is Alberta.

So there's an inherent conflict, I would argue, in getting all of these barriers out of the way and making sure that all of these things are taken care of. We had to have this new west partnership, when in actual fact the minister involved in this has been overseas trying to get China to prefer B.C. wood. We have a B.C. wood–branding initiative. We have B.C. beef–branding initiatives.

People on the ground get that we have a competitive advantage on natural resources or that where we don't have a competitive advantage on our natural resources, we want to grow one. And in order to grow one, we need, actually, the ability to do some of the work around subsidizing, around assisting industries — fledgling industries, maturing industries — that we're constrained from in this bill.

While it is good that western Canada gets to go to the world and say, "Look, pick us, and come and talk to us, and we're going to work together to facilitate you getting access to our natural resources," from a public policy perspective, there's also a trap in that, in that we can't whisper in their ear when we're having sake, or whatever it is they drink in China, and saying: "Yeah, but pick B.C. first." That's really what the minister should be doing: saying that B.C.'s natural resources ought to be the first choice. So there's a trap in the joint venture.

The labour mobility aspect of this, again, has been canvassed. We have actually downgraded in many ways,
[ Page 6566 ]
through the tenure of the sitting government, some of our trades training and the way that we deal with trades training. If this agreement elevates our trades training, then maybe that's a benefit out of it. But as we've seen in some of the amendments, etc., this levelling of the playing field can also make it so that some of our training and some of our certification comes down to the lowest common denominator.

Investment attraction. There are constraints in this bill that have been pointed out, where again the intent is to attract investment in B.C., Alberta and Saskatchewan. But the purpose of the British Columbia government should be to make sure that we maximize investment in British Columbia. So there is a trap here in getting involved in this, and there are constraints in various industries on what we can do to make our industry more attractive, to make our natural resources more attractive, to invest in a mine here, as opposed to Alberta or Saskatchewan.

From a public policy perspective, we want to have the freedom to be able to make those things happen. In this trade agreement it certainly appears as if we will give up a lot of that. Again, to what purpose?

I think it's the more insidious aspects of the bill that I struggled with — with TILMA as well as with this. Again, I wish I really understood the nature of what is behind these trade agreements.

There are four basic areas where I think we are undermining our capacity as a province.

Number one, the business of focusing on a results-based approach to any regulations. The bill explicitly states that any new regulations that come in that impact on all three provinces working together, that impact on the level playing field that has to be created actually should be results- or competency- or outcome-based regulations.

The government of British Columbia currently believes that that's the way to go. If a future government comes along that believes the government needs to be more deliberate and prescriptive in regulations, these trade agreements actually bind that government to a results-based approach and, as a consequence, bind future governments to the same ideological bent that the sitting government has. That is that government shouldn't regulate, that regulations are bad.

[1750]

In the case of the natural gas industry up north, I would argue that we need more prescriptive regulations. We are about to find out shortly what happens with the results-based regulations in the forest sector, as we start to get audits under those regulations.

Binding future governments in a trade agreement to a results-based approach to regulation I don't think is appropriate, and I don't think it was necessary that results-based or outcome-based regulations needed to be part of the agreement. So what is that broader agenda?

Secondly, as has been pointed out by other members, this deal undermines the autonomy of local governments, school boards, health authorities and other agencies to actually favour local procurement. There's local procurement within a certain amount, but over a certain amount, you're not allowed to do that.

Yet a very deliberate part of regional economic development, local economic development is actually to be able to favour your local providers, to make sure that you give some favour to your local paving crews if you're paving something. If you've got contractors that can build sewer systems or put culverts in or contractors that can build bridges, you, as part of a regional economic development initiative, may want to actually favour those.

I think, in many respects, that's good public policy, because it takes taxpayers' dollars, in the case of municipal governments, puts them into the local economy through local contractors, who then pay that money back to the municipal government. The provincial government doesn't float it out of Alberta.

If we end up getting into a competitive field where we see Albertan companies coming in and doing paving contracts and bridge contracts and so on…. Right now it's from the Okanagan. We already have that issue with respect to local procurement. We have Okanagan pavers often coming in and doing our road construction, meaning a lot of that money is going back to the Okanagan and not saying in the Cariboo.

Now, what will end up having happened is that it goes to Alberta or Saskatchewan, and in the case of public projects, British Columbia's tax money goes to other provinces and doesn't fully benefit us. I think that part — and it was mentioned in the TILMA agreement — of these agreements is unfair to the autonomy of those other agencies.

I think, as I understand the agreement…. I admit that I don't fully get all of it. I could read some of the phrases so that the general public knows. This is why I will admit publicly that I'm not quite sure of all of the aspects of this agreement.

This is a clause in the new west partnership trade agreement, and I'll read it into the public record. Maybe the public that's watching or reads this will get where I'm coming from. The clause states:

"No party shall prohibit or restrict an investment or the import of any good or service from any other party or the export of any good or service to any other party for a legitimate objective unless the prohibition or restriction on investment or the import of the like good or service from all parties and non-parties or the export of the like good or services to all parties and non-parties is similarly prohibited or restricted."

Now, I think it was the Lieutenant-Governor who, when he read a portion of the throne speech one time, said that we might need a translation, and I think that begs translation. There are lots of clauses in the agreement that read similar to that.

That's why I say I don't understand fully all the aspects of the agreement. But one of the things that I am curious about is whether or not — in the local procurement pro-
[ Page 6567 ]
cess, if a municipal government is challenged under the terms of this agreement by an entity — it's now the municipal government that's going to have to bear the costs associated with the dispute resolution mechanism.

So municipal governments are going to be sitting there bound by the agreement and then having to seek legal advice and then, potentially, having to engage in dispute resolution mechanisms. I may be wrong on that. It may be the province that holds that responsibility, but it's not clear to me where that responsibility lies when I read the actual agreement itself.

[1755]

Then another area that I'm concerned about is that this does limit…. The minister for this is the Minister of Jobs that has the area of regional economic development as part of his portfolio, and yet there are explicit restrictions in this agreement on what we can do with respect to regional economic development. Under the exemptions, regional economic development is recognized as an exemption.

In the area where I come from, we are going through a massive transition because of the mountain pine beetle. We have areas of the province that are in transition for a whole range of issues. The northwest of the province is going through significant transition. Government is heavily involved in that transition, heavily involved in working to try and find investment partners to look at public policy frameworks that will attract investment.

Yet this agreement restricts some of those measures and actually states that while regional economic development is exempted under the deal, it restrains that further by saying that only if these measures for economic development are "adopted or maintained under exceptional circumstances" — hopefully, the mountain pine beetle is an exceptional circumstance — "are not more trade-restrictive…do not operate to unduly harm the economic interests of the persons, goods, services or investments of the other party…."

Well, sometimes you will actually intervene to make sure that British Columbians are favoured in developing a region. "Minimize the discriminatory effects and impacts on trade, investment and labour mobility and are consistent with one of the other articles."

I think there's an inherent conflict in the substance of this agreement around regional economic development and the minister's own responsibilities to actually do regional economic development with funds allocated to do that and with tools within the public domain to do that work. There's a conflict here, which I look forward to third reading to see if we can get some clarity on.

Then the fourth piece is, I think, that because of some of the language in here, there are some restrictions on some of our natural resource industries. While there's a recognition that some of these areas are exempt, there's the problem of language.

Whenever you enter into an agreement with other parties, the language of the agreement becomes the fodder for the lawyers, becomes the fodder for people to challenge, becomes the fodder for people to be able to say: "That's not in the spirit and intent. This language allows us to do X or to do Y, or no, it doesn't."

As an example — and the minister is well aware of this — I've been pushing for British Columbia to take a very concerted and deliberate leadership stance on this new potential bioeconomy. The bioeconomy is all predicated on fibre — not timber, not our regular thought about forests.

In the agreement here, under exemptions, "Forests, Fish and Wildlife," it states that some of "the licensing, certification, registration, leasing or other disposition" of harvesting rights or fish resources…. They're exempted from the agreement. Fair enough. Management or conservation of forests, fish and wildlife are exempt, but then it says that the "requirements that timber be used or manufactured within the territory of a party" is also exempt.

But as I joked at the Association of B.C. Forest Professionals, the idea of wood is good no longer holds. What we should be saying is that fibre is fabulous, and we have a trade agreement that still recognizes us in a timber world.

One of the questions I would have for the minister is: again, because fibre is not explicitly exempt in this, are we setting ourselves up for a situation where if we want to engage in accelerating and fast-tracking and growing a whole new industry in British Columbia around forest fibre…?

Would we be in trouble right out of the gate because the government has signed us on to agreements with our partners in Alberta and Saskatchewan that constrain our ability to develop an industry here in British Columbia that British Columbia is well positioned to be a world leader on but may actually be constrained from doing so because we're trying to achieve I don't know what?

[1800]

I don't know what the purpose of these trade agreements is other than the rhetoric provided by the government. I have not been given the opportunity to give advice and consent as a legislator in this House. Nor has the general public. Nor have many of the players involved in this.

I think this is bad democracy. I think this is an inappropriate way to foist agreements like this on the various parties and agencies that will be circumscribed by this. My preference would be that the government does some public consultation before they bind us to these long-lasting and future-looking trade agreements in the future.

R. Fleming: I want to make a few comments this afternoon on Bill 5, which many members have covered very well — some of the reservations that the opposition side has around the agreement.

It's interesting that we're debating here this afternoon a piece of legislation that will come into effect retroactively to July 1, 2010, and — I think, in light of
[ Page 6568 ]
comments made by members in this House about how we wish to proceed with caution on an agreement with as sweeping and comprehensive a range of goods, services, professions and products as is in this agreement — that we're debating it, really, after the fact.

Again, as is typical of this government, we're debating a bill where the majority of the content of it is not before us here to debate in this chamber. It is to be set at a later date by regulation by government and then to be imposed retroactively.

Members have talked about how we are potentially tying the hands of local governments, school districts, health authorities and all sorts of different levels of government and their activities through an agreement to which they had no input or little input or to which, in the case of the Union of B.C. Municipalities, they voiced their disagreement, which has carried no weight with this government.

I think it's appropriate for the Legislature, having seen this bill just mere days ago, to be exercising caution on behalf of those whose voice we wish to amplify in this debate and ask the government to be more transparent and answer the difficult questions about some of the potential impacts and implications of Bill 5 when it becomes law.

There are a number of concerns that others have spoken to this afternoon, which we will examine later again in committee stage of debate, but I want to start maybe with some background here that forms the context for the debate.

It's interesting that we're talking about trade between provinces, the flow of goods and services between ourselves and Alberta and Saskatchewan. We're not talking — either in the throne speech or in this entire legislative session so far, and I'm including the week we had in February — about something that is a long-term competitive worry in the province of British Columbia, and that is the $45 billion trade deficit that this province has internationally — in other words, the amount of goods that we import over what we export.

We've got a collapse of wholesale industries that has occurred in British Columbia. We have tens of thousands of people who have lost their jobs in various sectors. We're talking about a research-and-development environment in British Columbia that has been judged very harshly by the government's own agencies, including the Progress Board of British Columbia. We're talking about a number of structural economic issues, or rather we should be talking about a number of structural economic challenges to the province of British Columbia in this place.

Yet instead, we're talking about something euphemistically described as the new west partnership, a partnership that Saskatchewan rightly rejected a number of years ago for key reasons, one of which was an area of concern around Crown corporations. It was a very valid concern for British Columbians but one that it took….

[1805]

The only western Canadian jurisdiction that was standing up and asking the right questions around that was Saskatchewan at the time. I'm surprised, but a change in government in Saskatchewan…. I'm surprised, after the international embarrassment over the Potash privatization attempt, that Saskatchewan is now not securing what they wanted from the federal government in this interprovincial agreement.

There are a number of things that members have raised this afternoon, and we've just barely got into this debate. It's certainly not something that features very prominently in the public realm, but when we're talking in our communities about how we can rebuild jobs, how we can create family-supporting jobs, help industry get back on its feet, we are often talking about the hard work that it takes to get communities to be resilient, to get them together, sitting down at the table and figuring out a plan for economically depressed regions.

Does this bill help in any way to advance that discussion in many parts of the province of British Columbia — just a few kilometres from where we are here on the south Island, where we have hard-hit communities with double-digit unemployment numbers, where we need to figure a way out of some of the traditional resource industries that we've relied on — to get to something else, in part based on what we've done, in a new way?

This agreement does nothing to advance that discussion. In fact, it may threaten the ability of local governments and credit unions and organizations that come together with financial packages to rescue and reinvent industries, like we saw at Harmac and other places like that, to buy supplies and to include local, small and medium-sized enterprises to come together and have an economic development strategy on a subregional basis. That could become a trade practice that is threatened by this agreement.

To help communities stand on their own two feet could be something that is cited as an irregularity to be punished and held liable in this agreement that we're pushing through this afternoon. That's the wrong course to be taking, and I think members are quite right to be asking government the questions behind the lovely-sounding title of this bill, to delve into what the contents of it are and how our hands might be tied to do things that our communities, indeed, want to do and are talking about doing at this point in time.

We're handing over more power to dispute panels to make decisions, rather than government policy-makers and communities — to dispute panels that will adjudicate on what we may or may not do to benefit our communities and key industries. That's not something that we asked for.

That's not tearing down some imaginary tariff wall and replacing it with something better. That's putting a
[ Page 6569 ]
hammer over local governments and other levels of government, school districts, to do business as they see fit, to do business in a way that provides maximum benefit to their communities. What kind of legislation would ask that of local government?

This government introduced, many years ago now, something called the Community Charter. It indeed sounded good, as does the new west partnership. It promised greater levels of autonomy for local government at the time and didn't deliver. It promised new revenue tools to local government that never materialized.

Now we have this bill, this agreement, that will further tie the hands of local government to pursue, for their own legitimate reasons, procurement strategies and economic development strategies that will put people to work and get their communities on the move. That could become something that Alberta and Saskatchewan think differently about, that their companies complain about — local agreements that can be signed by governments that are elected and accountable to people here in British Columbia.

Does that sound right? Does that sound like something that is going to help advance communities out of a very serious situation that they find themselves in, in different parts of British Columbia today? It doesn't. It will take away the flexibility and the tools that we need to be able to advance solutions here locally.

[1810]

I'll give you one example, and I will pursue this with the government on another occasion as well. Local sourcing and supplier agreements can be pursued for a number of legitimate reasons. There can be a number of social and economic goals attached to them. It could be to provide work for historically underemployed people. Aboriginal communities, for example, is one that I know would resonate with a lot of members here.

It could be to create a critical mass or a cluster of organizations that will help a business economic development strategy in a region that needs some stable source of work and contracts to make it viable to borrow against, to attract investment and to take off. Those are valid reasons, very valid reasons, for communities to pursue and privilege local sourcing and procurement.

But there's another one, too, that's coming into effect in January of next year, and that is the requirements of municipal governments to be carbon neutral, which is a great goal for the province. It's something that we need to pursue here as our commitment to work with other jurisdictions on reducing carbon pollution to our atmosphere.

In that situation, given that that requirement is coming down in the not-too-distant future on local governments, why would we potentially impede the ability of health authorities, school districts and now local governments, as of January 1, 2012, to take actions that can help them avoid buying carbon offsets and making payments of taxpayer dollars, and in the process reduce greenhouse gases, to take action and advantage of local companies with shorter carbon miles and all sorts of advantages that they may have that will save local ratepayers money?

Why would we make that something that could potentially be threatened by this agreement? That's a good question, and it's one that the government has not spoken to as of yet. They should be talking about what is going to make B.C. a strong and competitive province again, what is going to address the $45 billion trade deficit that this province finds itself in, what is going to rebuild the manufacturing sector and other key industries in British Columbia, how that fits in with a knowledge-based economy. But instead, here we are disadvantaging local governments, school boards, hospitals and their procurement practices and their economic development strategies to the advantage of Alberta and Saskatchewan.

That's wrong. They've raised their concerns. The government has failed to address them, and that is why this side of the House will vote against Bill 5.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister closes debate.

Hon. P. Bell: Having listened tentatively to the debate over the last two hours or so, it has become obvious to me what the difference is between the NDP world and this government's world.

That is that the NDP opposes the notion of having to compete in the global marketplace and acknowledging and recognizing that we have some of the best industries anywhere in the world that are not afraid to compete and to sell our products internationally. This particular agreement, the new west partnership, simply opens up the opportunity for our businesses to go out and compete for activities not just in an area that represents about $200 billion worth of economic activity here in British Columbia but to a broader area that is half a trillion dollars of economic activity.

I have enough faith — and apparently the NDP does not — in our businesses, in our industries to know that when British Columbia goes to compete, we win. When our businesses go to compete, we win. We in fact don't need subsidies from government to be successful.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

What we need is an open marketplace that allows us to take the skill sets that have developed in the province of British Columbia and compete not just here in B.C. but in Alberta and Saskatchewan and globally. When we do that, I have every confidence that British Columbia is going to be the winner.
[ Page 6570 ]

I had many interesting comments over the last couple of hours, and I'm tempted to go through many of them in detail, but I'm going to resist that, noting that we do want to get through this bill and have a bit more work to do this evening.

With that, I move second reading.

[1815]

Motion approved.

Hon. P. Bell: I move that Bill 5 be placed on the orders of the day for the Committee of the Whole at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 5, New West Partnership Trade Agreement Implementation Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

Hon. P. Bell moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 tomorrow afternoon.

The House adjourned at 6:16 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); D. Horne in the chair.

The committee met at 2:39 p.m.

On Vote 11: ministry operations, $35,010,000.

The Chair: Before we get going, I'd like to introduce Susan Sourial who has recently joined the Office of the Clerk of Committees, who is here with me at the table. Susan was employed by the committees branch of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario for the past 12 years and spent six weeks' secondment last fall in B.C. sharing her experiences as an experienced committee Clerk.

[1440]

Susan will be assisting us during the Committee of Supply, Section A, in proceedings throughout the coming weeks. I thank Susan and welcome her here to the committee.

We're currently commencing the debate on the budget estimates for the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, and I'll call on the minister.

Hon. M. Polak: First of all, I, of course, want to recognize the traditional territories of the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations. We're pleased to be holding our deliberations on their lands today.

Today with me are Steve Munro, my deputy minister; Julian Paine, assistant deputy minister; Arlene Paton, assistant deputy minister; Charles Porter, assistant deputy minister; Neilane Mayhew, EFO; Ranbir Parmar, our chief financial officer; and Michael Lord, director of finance. We welcome them here today, and I'm sure they will be pleased to answer any and all questions that we have for them and assist with our discussion of the estimates today.

We certainly had a lot of very interesting things happening in the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, not the least of which has been the fact that since the last estimates discussion we've achieved a number of significant agreements. I was certainly honoured to be present at the celebration of the implementation of the Maa-nulth First Nations final agreement, and I know the member was also present.

It was a wonderful day, and I think it illustrates for all of us the ultimate goal that we have as government and, indeed, as non-aboriginal people to come to those kinds of agreements with First Nations that allow their people to flourish, allow our province to grow economically and to benefit from the rich history that we have in place here in British Columbia by fully realizing the opportunities that are there and can be there, especially for First Nations young people as we move toward final agreements that bring some certainty not only to the land base but also to the future opportunities of aboriginal people in British Columbia.

Our recent successes, I believe, show that there is tremendous momentum that is behind not only the treaty process but also our general work together with aboriginal communities, First Nations, to ensure that those opportunities are put in place in the best way possible. We are certainly working in partnership with many First Nations both inside and outside the treaty process as well as considering our work with the Métis people of British Columbia. Indeed, when we speak of the aboriginal people with whom we work, it's not just aboriginal communities with whom we are forming relationships around treaty but also recognizing that a significant number of our aboriginal population are living in urban settings off reserve.

Certainly, a very complex, interesting ministry, a fascinating piece of work and, I think, ultimately something
[ Page 6571 ]
that, as far as ministries go, gives us one of the most wonderful opportunities in government to really look ahead to the future for all British Columbians, including aboriginal and non-aboriginal British Columbians.

With that, I welcome our deliberations as we discuss the estimates for the ministry.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister and staff for being here and making this time available, and welcome to the minister in this portfolio. I've had some time with this back and forth, but aboriginal affairs has become a bit of a passion for me. I don't think there's any more important ministry when it comes to actually addressing issues of social justice. I think that's captured, indeed, in the title of the ministry about reconciliation.

It's a wonderful opportunity, I think, not just for British Columbia but for us to be able to lead the rest of the world in righting past wrongs and addressing social justice in a real way, on the ground. Thank you for taking this portfolio on.

[1445]

I'm going to begin by doing an introduction with an issue that I am hoping we'll have common ground on. We may diverge throughout this discussion this afternoon, but I'm hoping that this one…. The minister has touched on it already, and it's dealing with — I'm going to get right into this — the urban aboriginal issues.

I'm having a hard time finding any specific strategy addressing urban aboriginal peoples in British Columbia. There's work being done, rightly so, as the minister has pointed out, around treaty and interim measures agreements. The treaty process is an ongoing sort of slow process that we'll talk about a little bit later, and there have been some successes. But as pointed out, I think over 60 percent of aboriginal peoples in British Columbia live off reserve, often — the vast majority — in the cities.

There's no specific urban aboriginal strategy in place. There are no specific budget items to address the issues of urban aboriginal peoples. With that in mind, I'm hoping that the minister will agree that that is a priority and should be a priority, but is one that maybe is lacking within the ministry at this point. I'm wondering if the minister could comment first before I proceed.

Hon. M. Polak: Thank you very much for the question. I think it is very easy for us to forget, when we speak of the importance of treaties and agreements, that a very significant number of the population — I believe estimated at 70 percent of our aboriginal population — are living off reserve and, indeed, for the most part in urban areas. It is a very large percentage.

But that's not to say that there aren't strategies in place. Really, when it comes to our work in urban populations, we focus on our work with the federal government, which does have an urban aboriginal strategy. We work together with them to make sure that our programs and services are aligned with that work.

It's also important to note that when it comes to work — whether it's programming or other supports — that's provided for an urban aboriginal population, it involves very many ministries across government. In fact, if you start to think about the different areas in which there are specific programs, services and supports that are there directly related to the work with an urban aboriginal population, one can think of schools, for example, through the Ministry of Education, and health authorities through the Ministry of Health. There is also support provided very specifically through the Ministry of Children and Family Development. There are some programs through the Ministry of Social Development.

So there are very many programs across government that go to supporting and assisting and aligning. Those programs are, in turn, aligned as best we can with the strategy that the federal government has around an urban aboriginal population.

It's also important to note that we do support the Métis Nation of B.C., along with the B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres. In fact, they both are organizations with which we work very closely to try and provide additional supports for that urban population of aboriginal people.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. I agree, and I try to meet with the Métis Nation of B.C. on a regular basis, and certainly, I've toured as many friendship centres in the province as I can.

[1450]

There are more to come, because there are 23 centres throughout the province that do the good work that they do. I will touch on that as I just probe this a bit further.

I note the number one goal in the new relationship that this government has adopted. It's: "Our shared vision includes a celebration of our diversity and an appreciation of what we have in common. We recognize the vision of First Nations to achieve the following goals: (1)" — I'll just encapsulate this. It begins with — "To restore, revitalize and strengthen First Nations and their communities and families to eliminate the gap in standards of living with other British Columbians."

It's that gap, I think, that we can have total agreement on. There is a big gap, a socioeconomic gap, between aboriginal peoples and non-aboriginal peoples in British Columbia. A lot of that gap is apparent off reserve, in urban centres. The 70 percent — actually, that was a higher number than I realized, when the minister brought that up. I think that makes it even more compelling.

In keeping with that goal, the number one goal, and also in keeping with…. I had the people at the Legislative Library that do wonderful work research-wise…. I didn't
[ Page 6572 ]
have the information available to me. I asked them to look into the Finance Committee's last tour. I'll just do a quote from there.

The Finance Committee — for those watching on Hansard here before the Canucks game this afternoon or this evening — is a non-partisan group, really, that tours the province and gets input from individuals and groups throughout the province. They make strong recommendations to government on government policy.

On that Finance Committee's last tour they note:

"This year, for the first time, the Finance Committee received considerable input on how government can support the 23 friendship centres in the province and B.C.'s growing urban aboriginal population. Funding for friendship centres is managed through the first citizens fund, created in 1969 for cultural, educational and economic development for B.C. aboriginal peoples living off reserve. In partnership with the B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres, the friendship centre program offsets the employment costs of friendship centre directors.

"The Finance Committee was informed that the current provincial funding has not been increased for over 20 years and that, in recent years, the friendship centre program has experienced funding cuts…."

As the minister is aware, many written submissions supported this particular issue. Out of that came the recommendation from the Finance Committee to government, and it's just one sentence long. It's recommendation 31. It's: "Invest additional resources annually in a long-term capacity fund for B.C. friendship centres."

Before I sit down on this with the question to the minister about supporting the recommendation…. As the minister enters into this portfolio, she will see the work that friendship centres do. It's a true investment in all British Columbians, not just for aboriginal peoples. It addresses some of the key issues on the ground that families, children, elders, aboriginal peoples face every day in urban realities.

They're already there; they already have the expertise. I would submit that they have developed the level of trust with the people, the clients. I don't know if that's the right term. They're there already. Their needs have increased. The number of people that have gone to friendship centres in the last number of years has increased dramatically. Costs have increased dramatically for all persons and organizations in British Columbia, whether it's hydro or just costs of doing business, and they have actually received a cut.

I'm hoping that the minister will agree to look into that and hopefully address it and make sure that there is stable funding made available that's adequate for the friendship centres to do the work that they do.

I'll just sit down at that and see if I get a response.

[1455]

Hon. M. Polak: First of all, to clarify one thing, I think the member was probably referencing the B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres when speaking about funding not having been increased for some time and instead mentioned the first citizens fund.

I just wanted to clarify that the first citizens fund — the member is correct — was established in 1969, at that time with an endowment of about $25 million. In 2001 the government actually doubled the net value of that, which had risen to $36 million. The government doubled the net value of that to $72 million. Of course, it's the interest earned from that fund that allows us to make investments and support programs utilizing that funding.

When it comes to the B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres, they do amazing work, and the member is very right in saying that it is work in communities that doesn't just benefit aboriginal people but benefits entire communities. Certainly, we are pleased to be able to support them in the way that we do. For '10-11 they will be receiving about a million dollars from the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. That maintains our funding from last year. We don't foresee reductions to them this year. However, in the current fiscal climate our opportunity to increase funding just is not there.

We hope, as revenues return, that there are ways in which we can provide greater supports, of course, in very many areas, including the aboriginal friendship centres. But at this time an increase in funding is not something that we believe we would be able to achieve for them. However, we are actively working not only with other ministries that also provide financial support to the BCAAFC but also with the federal government. And we are ourselves looking for other program options that would allow us to fund additional programs through the friendship centres which, in turn, may also assist in helping them with their sustainability and with the management of their programs.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. I'm going to push back. I believe it's shortsighted to not be investing further into friendship centres. As I pointed out — and I know that the minister knows this; the minister's staff knows it well — the good work that friendship centres do has increased. The needs have increased, and they are not being addressed. I would submit that there is a….

With the first citizens fund, I'm glad that that's set up and that there's an endowment there where the interest can go towards the work being done, but it's insufficient. It has actually been…. De facto cuts are what it amounts to, as the increased needs have occurred throughout the province. I would suggest that you could not invest….

It's not a cost. This is truly an investment that has to be addressed, and to not address it specifically by funding it adequately…. I mean, friendship centres in British Columbia…. Not providing adequate funding, indeed by allowing that funding to dwindle and to be cut, is not in keeping with the first goal that I cited before, which is to restore, revitalize and strengthen First Nations and
[ Page 6573 ]
their communities and families to eliminate the gap in the standard of living with other British Columbians.

[1500]

The gap is no more glaring than in urban centres. So considering that the ministry…. The province has no specific programming in place. They have no specific resources in place on the ground in urban centres in British Columbia to address those needs and to try to close that gap in keeping with the new relationship that this government has held up since 2005 as being a thesis to be adhered to. So to not fund friendship centres means that that is being let slide, and aboriginal peoples and the people of B.C. will pay a price for that and are paying a price for that.

Again, I would ask the minister to reconsider, and I will have another, more compelling argument afterwards too.

[J. McIntyre in the chair.]

Hon. M. Polak: I certainly appreciate, as does the member…. I know this from his impassioned speech, which I wholeheartedly agree with in terms of the value of friendship centres.

The unfortunate reality is that while the needs have increased, revenues to government have not. In fact, revenues to government have been in quite a challenging place not only for British Columbia but around the world. So while we have made sure that we can maintain the funding to aboriginal friendship centres, we aren't at this time able to increase the funding.

Certainly, while it would be our desire to improve services on a continual basis and to always be assisting as needs increase when there are downturns in revenues, governments have limited financial capacity. As a result, while we're able to continue to maintain the funding, we are not able to increase it this year.

S. Fraser: Madam Chair, welcome to the debate here. For the last 20 years, there's been…. By my notes we have $720,000 a year for friendship centres in British Columbia, and that doesn't even come close to addressing the level of need that we see in B.C.'s off-reserve aboriginal populations.

This year those funds have been reduced as the first citizens fund is reduced and realigned to focus on economic development. There's been a change there. Another funding problem faced by friendship centres is the dependence on gaming grants.

There's been no solid funding. So if the minister is suggesting that as the economic realities change, as revenues ebb and flow into the coffers of government, that'll determine how, in many cases, those that have the greatest needs in an economic downturn will be addressed, I would suggest that's backwards.

I mean, there's no way that social justice will be addressed if friendship centres, for instance, don't have stable, solid funding so that when their needs will increase as economic situations in the province have more challenges, so will the people that go to friendship centres, and they access them for services. So this is…. I would say penny-wise, pound-foolish doesn't cover it.

There's no way that a valuable social service — and valuable social services that the friendship centres do deliver right now on a shoestring, inadequate budget — should be based on the whims of economic ups and downturns. That's ridiculous. It would be like telling people: "You can't have health care now because we can't afford it right now." You can't do that.

I would suggest this is a small amount of money that would be required to provide stable funding, but stable funding to provide for the needs that they are already addressing would be in keeping with the best interests of the people of British Columbia.

[1505]

Hon. M. Polak: Again, this is in no way a reflection on some thinking that somehow aboriginal friendship centres and the work that they do is not valuable. It's tremendously valuable. However, we are at a point in time where governments around the world were faced with a tremendous challenge in managing their budgets. We have been as well. As a result, we had to make reductions in various places across government in order to support key programs, and some of these are just those programs.

We did make a reduction. That was not this year, though, Member. That was for last year. This year the funding is going to remain the same. We have maintained that funding in spite of the challenges that we face as a ministry. It's also very important to note that the funding that is supplied through the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation is not the only funding for the aboriginal friendship centres that is received from government. In total, across government, the funding that we provide is about $8½ million.

Yes, we would love to be able to increase the amount of support that we provide to friendship centres. There are many areas in government, across government, right now that ministers and others would love to increase funding to, but at the current time, and in our current fiscal circumstance, that isn't possible.

S. Fraser: With all due respect to the minister, anything is possible. It's possible that massive payouts can go to outgoing senior staff people. It's possible that a 100 percent override on costs on a big building downtown can happen.

Anything is possible. It's just depending on where the priorities are. The priorities were to close the gap in standards of living that exist for aboriginal peoples. As the minister pointed out, 70 percent of aboriginal peoples live off reserve. Without a formal strategy from
[ Page 6574 ]
the government, the friendship centres are doing the work required by the ministry, by the government, for 70 percent of aboriginal peoples in this province.

They're doing it with $720,000 a year for 23 centres, and that's for staffing. I realize there are other funds there, but there's no…. As the minister travels to friendship centres, she'll see that it's an incredible need to have stable staffing in friendship centres. The level of trust that's built up, having residence time for staff, is essential in how they deliver their services to so many people that require it in British Columbia.

To not look at that and say that there's not enough money means that you're letting a lot of people fall through cracks here. To not have stable funding that actually will meet the staffing needs of friendship centres means that you'll have a high turnover. The minister will know that. The minister's staff can confirm that. That happens. Indeed, some of those staff end up in the ministry, working for the ministry themselves because there are not enough resources being provided for friendship centres right now.

We're not talking a lot of money, compared to the amount of services being delivered to the vast number of people that require it in urban centres — aboriginal people. Again, you've got an organization that has already…. You've got the investment. There are brick-and-mortar buildings here. These are organizations that are delivering and have developed trust for their client base. All they require from government is a fair amount of funding that actually meets the realities of delivering those services and programs.

Again, it would not be in keeping with the new relationship — the words, the spirit and intent of the new relationship — to not provide adequate funding as recommended by the Finance Committee. The Finance Committee is very specific. Recommendation 31 says, "Invest" — invest, not spend — "additional resources annually in a long-term capacity fund for B.C. friendship centres." She can turn to page 65 of the submissions made by the Finance Committee to get further details. There were many submissions made.

[1510]

Will the minister consider the recommendations made by the Finance Committee and the recommendations made by myself, I think on a non-partisan issue, to invest in friendship centres, as recommended by the new relationship, as recommended by the Finance Committee?

Hon. M. Polak: The importance of the work of friendship centres is precisely why, in spite of challenging economic times, including for our ministry, we have worked so hard to maintain the funding for the friendship centres. We believe in their work, and we know that it's valuable.

But it is extremely important to realize that while aboriginal friendship centres are providing an incredible service in communities around the province, they are not the only means by which services are provided and supports are provided to those who are aboriginal people living in an urban setting — for example, when you think about other ways in which we've worked to close the gaps that were outlined in the goals around the transformative change accord and the new relationship. Take, for example, the fact that we've funded over 200 off-reserve housing units through a fund of $50.9 million in the aboriginal housing initiative.

We've also reduced financial barriers to post-secondary education for aboriginal students — that through the creation of an endowed scholarship fund of $10.6 million. We also, of course, established the $100 million new relationship trust. Those funds, which are managed by an independent board, are there to support programs — be they in education, capacity, culture and language, youth and elders, economic development.

Of course, most recently we've announced a $5 million First Nations clean energy business fund which, again, assists First Nations, in particular, in developing economic opportunities. That in turn, I'm told — as I speak to those in urban communities and, indeed, with First Nations who are building up these kinds of opportunities — very often is an opportunity for those in an urban setting to sometimes return to the First Nation of their origin and be able to take part economically there with opportunities that were not present at the time they left.

There are many, many other areas that we could cover, but that gives you a small sampling of the many and varied types of programming and opportunities that are provided through government in addition to what takes place through the aboriginal friendship centres.

S. Fraser: I will pursue this at a later date with the minister. I don't believe that she's accurate in some of her….

The $100 million trust is not readily accessible to deal with urban aboriginal issues. There was never the intent. It's administered through the leadership council. It's not dealing with…. I don't believe the proceeds from that are even accessible to groups like friendship centres. It's simply…. They're not on the boards. They don't have any representation there, so I would suggest that this gap still exists.

I will be closing on this issue, because the clock is ticking. I could spend the entire four hours on it if I wanted to.

I'm going to be putting forward a motion this abbreviated session that will be addressing the needs of urban aboriginal peoples. I would hope that I can re-engage the minister and the minister's staff with that, and maybe we can have further meetings on this. I'll just give you the gist of it.

[1515]

It will be to resolve that the province of British Columbia develop a specific and targeted strategy to address the needs and realities of urban aboriginal peoples
[ Page 6575 ]
in British Columbia and that the strategy must include timelines and deliverables. And be it further resolved that the B.C. friendship centres must play a key role in the planning and delivery of this strategy and that B.C.'s 23 friendship centres represent the best hope for many off-reserve aboriginal peoples and families and must receive adequate and stable funding to carry on and expand that good work in accordance with the strategy.

So just a forewarning, if that's the proper word, for the minister and staff. I'm not going to give up on this. I believe I have broken a bit of ground on this. It wasn't a fight-back like we might have on some other issues as this session proceeds.

I thank the minister and staff for their consideration of this issue, and then consider it as a warning that I will be returning to this issue through other means, as the Legislature proceeds in the next month.

Maybe I'll just sit down and see if there's a comment on that before I proceed.

Hon. M. Polak: I think only to say that clearly we are always willing to be working with not only the friendship centres but other partners — and indeed we do — to determine whether or not there are ways in which we can provide supports through other means, be they additional programming that we provide, and therefore additional dollars flow through that, or perhaps there are other partnerships that we can construct. We're actively speaking with them and will continue to work with the federal government with respect to its urban aboriginal strategy as well.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. If I could just touch on the broad-brush, 10,000-foot level about the ministry. I'm hoping to get some clarification. The roles of the ministry. I'm just trying to confirm if they have been changed to some extent, if they've been expanded to other ministries. We do have other ministries involved with aboriginal issues. Certainly, with aboriginal tourism, it's in Jobs, Tourism and Innovation.

Certainly, the new Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations has a role to play now with consultation with First Nations, presumably with resource use. So we're seeing a broadening of the base, I would suggest, for aboriginal issues beyond the scope of MARR.

I'm just wondering: am I correct there? Can the minister comment on that?

Hon. M. Polak: Through the reorganization that took place in October, there were a number of responsibilities in the lands area and really not so much — in fact, not any — in terms of the more social or other types of areas such as tourism. Nevertheless, the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation does play a role as a centre of excellence for government with respect to dealing with First Nations and aboriginal people. We certainly work across government with other ministries, such as MCFD, such as many others, when we are coordinating work with First Nations.

[1520]

S. Fraser: If I may, just a little further. In dealing with major projects, resort development, Crown land opportunities and restoration, archaeology, heritage and First Nations consultation functions are grouped together in major projects, First Nations and community opportunities — that's under the ADM, Peter Walters — to streamline complex decision coordination.

That's the statement from the ministry. Does the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation lose a component of your role, of your mandate, as far as consultation functions go? Is this a specific change, or did it exist in another form prior to the new ministry?

Hon. M. Polak: I'll see if I can make this make sense, because whenever you get into these areas, there's always a range of complexity.

In this particular instance, what occurs is that our ministry is responsible for establishing the policy framework through which you have the consultation take place. Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations are then responsible for the operationalizing of that.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. Further clarification — the moneys. Is there money that flows to or from Natural Resource's ministry, or do you have full-time equivalents to do liaising with that? Or is there something in the budget that I missed? How does that all work? I just don't know the mechanism. Maybe that's still being developed because the ministry is obviously quite new.

Hon. M. Polak: Hopefully, I'm going to answer the right question that you asked, because of course there was a reorganization back in October, and then very, very recently — just in the last number of weeks — there has been another reorganization with the new cabinet, etc.

The way it has occurred for MARR is under the October reorganization a number of different functions came to our ministry — so forest consultation, revenue-sharing agreements from the Ministry of Forests and Range; aboriginal relations branch from Ministry of Agriculture and Lands; First Nations initiatives branch from the integrated land management bureau; and aboriginal relations branch from Small Business, Technology and Economic Development.

You'll remember those as past ministry names — right? That all came to us under the October reorganization. This most recent change around has not altered that in any way. Hopefully, that helps to clarify it.

S. Fraser: I won't pursue this any further, although I may go into the other estimates for the other ministries
[ Page 6576 ]
and just touch on that to get some further clarification. But thanks to the minister for that.

According to the budget for the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, we've got about…. It's almost static. It's a small decline, a 1½ percent reduction in budget. Those cuts…. Is there an anticipated impact?

[1525]

I know it's relatively small. For instance, that could have funded friendship centres. I don't want to be dwelling on that, but these are…. We have a static budget, except it has been a small amount of cuts. So how will that affect delivery, or where will it affect delivery of services?

Hon. M. Polak: I appreciate that whenever there is a reduction, we are always concerned to protect those things that are of highest priority, and that is how we've managed to make these kinds of changes in the ministry. We will be focusing on managing our salaries and benefits as we look to attrition and slippage in those positions.

We do not anticipate any reductions in staffing, any staff layoffs, but as I say, we will be certainly looking to fill only the most critical vacancies as we manage forward. We'll also be focusing on things such as the reduction in travel, using green technology wherever we can, relying a lot more heavily on our regional staff in order to support the kind of face-to-face meetings that we have to engage in.

We are looking at ways to reduce not only our legal costs, but also we've reduced our contract spending by relying a lot more heavily on in-house expertise. There will be a slight reduction to transfers. We're attempting to make that number as small as possible, but it is unavoidable that there will be some reductions in those areas.

Again, our main priority is to maintain those transfers that are required for existing agreements, of course.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that.

Do you have enough money to do the job? Do you have enough funds to provide consultation with First Nations, with leadership council? Are you able to fulfil contractual obligations with First Nations? Are there sufficient funds in your budget to do the job?

The Chair: Just a quick reminder that all remarks are directed through the Chair.

Hon. M. Polak: Yes. In short, through managing the finances in the way that I outlined, that has enabled us to make sure that we maintain our contractual obligations. It's important to note that each individual agreement is engaged in as an individual agreement. Those are things that the ministry approaches Treasury Board for and is not expected to cover out of its own existing budget.

[1530]

S. Fraser: Madam Chair, thank you for that advice.

And to the minister, thanks.

This was before the minister's time, but it was last year. Justine Hunter, in the Globe and Mail, said — it was a small piece — that the ministry didn’t have the funds to implement the Yale agreement. It was a statement made in the press by a respected journalist, and it's not the first time I've heard that.

Will the minister comment, please.

Hon. M. Polak: Well, first of all, to say that that statement is not correct that was attributed to the news report.

It's likely, I would speculate, that it is based on a misunderstanding as to how the funding flows to support treaties. For example, in the case of Yale they have ratified their final agreement. Once it goes through our Legislature and the federal legislature, then the finances begin to flow that support that agreement. But it's not correct to say that we don't have the funds to be able to support the Yale agreement.

S. Fraser: Thank you, to the minister.

Other agreements — Treaty 8. Is there sufficient money? Are they receiving money that's owed to them, due to them through their agreements?

Hon. M. Polak: All of our contractual agreements are fully funded, fully supported. There are no outstanding obligations that we have with respect to our contractual obligations with First Nations.

S. Fraser: The amount of funds provided to the leadership council to engage in trilateral or bilateral or unilateral discussions and negotiations with the government — obviously very important…. How is that determined, and what amount has been provided for that?

Hon. M. Polak: In terms of this year, we…. I'm sorry — last year, technically. It was the end of March, so last year but not a year ago. We did provide the First Nations Leadership Council with in and around $350,000. I think it's $347-point-something.

Nevertheless, the important thing to recognize is what has transpired for the First Nations Leadership Council since the collapse of the R and R legislation. The First Nations Leadership Council working with the All Chiefs Task Force conducted quite an extensive reflection with respect to their work. They have now come back to us with a renewed mandate, and as a result, we are now considering what, if any, funding we would provide to them for this coming year. Those decisions haven't been made yet.

Certainly in that interim period there was a time where the work of the First Nations Leadership Council was awaiting the results of this time of reflection. I have met with the First Nations Leadership Council, together with the new Premier. We are all anxious to re-engage in
[ Page 6577 ]
the work that we have done together in the past and are hopeful that that will be successful, as it has been.

S. Fraser: Thank you, to the minister.

Less than $350,000 — now that was received quite late in March. That was the end of the year-end fiscal, so that's a problem if negotiations are to continue. Obviously, there's a cost to discussion and meetings and negotiations.

The minister has already commented that part of the cuts to the ministry will be reducing travel costs, etc. So from the ministry's side you're going to have people that are going to have less resources available to meet. I mean, the $350,000….

[1535]

I don't have exact figures, but if you go back to another millennia, another era, in the '90s, I believe, just one…. The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs I know received over a quarter of a million dollars to engage in bilateral discussions with the province — obviously very essential, important discussions — and I believe it was similar for the summit. I'm not sure about the B.C. Assembly of First Nations.

So $350,000 or less than $350,000 divided by three — $115,000, $116,000 each; I don't have my calculator — coming in at the very end of year-end fiscal doesn't seem like a very…. Did that ruffle any feathers with anybody? Did that get anybody angry about…? Was that negotiated and agreed upon? I would think that would be a problem for any kind of discussions and negotiations to happen with government.

Hon. M. Polak: With all due respect, I think the part that the member is not appreciating to the extent he ought to is the time of reflection that the First Nations Leadership Council went through. One of the reasons that there was no money flowing to the First Nations Leadership Council in that interim period is that they were not re-mandated by the All Chiefs Task Force until quite late in the year. I think it was December. So it was after that time that we began to consider providing them with financial support in the manner in which we have in the past.

It's also very important to note that they have not been funded, traditionally, by us, on block. It's been funding that was tied to specific initiatives. So for example, when there was a significant amount of work being conducted by the First Nations Leadership Council on the reconciliation and recognition act, that was something that they were provided specific funding for — the work that they were engaged in around that.

The funding we've provided over the years has always been tied to initiatives that they have been involved with, whether it was supporting their capacity to do that or, indeed, actual specific costs associated with it.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that clarification. Does that amount to a cut, though? I mean, was there a cut from the previous fiscal for…? There may be justifiable reasons, but does that amount to a cut?

Hon. M. Polak: It's difficult to track this on a year-to-year basis, because again, it's not funding in the same way that one might fund or provide an allocation to a school, for example, where you track how much there is per student. Each and every year for the leadership council it changes depending on what work they're engaged in.

For example, at the time when the work was being done on the recognition and reconciliation act, there was a tremendous amount of work being done by the leadership council, and they were funded accordingly. They were also prepaid for some work going into the coming year.

While the amounts vary from year to year, that is precisely because we fund based on the initiatives that they are involved with. And during that interim period when they did not have a mandate from the All Chiefs Task Force, there was no money flowing to them at that time. So it's almost impossible to track an apple-to-apple comparison.

What we could do, if the member is interested, is provide to you an example of some of the things that they have been funded to engage in, in the past, so that you could get a flavour for those different initiatives — when they took place and what kind of duration they had — if that would be helpful.

S. Fraser: That information would be helpful, and I can wait for that. It's not critical in these proceedings right here. That's wonderful. I'll contact your office, or maybe you can contact me when you have that information, and I'll be happy to collect it.

[1540]

The treaty system. The minister talked about Maa-nulth, a wonderful celebration — nations being able to escape the yoke of the Indian Act, if you will. Truly moving for everyone involved, and I look forward to more of those.

There are more than 200 First Nations in British Columbia. Of course, not all are involved in the treaty process, only 60 or so, I would submit, and 41 of those nations have been involved in the treaty process, going on 15 years for some. If you pull out your calculator and we look at the rate of this — and I don't mean this as a criticism of government — we're looking at 100 years from now that we'll still be engaged in this process, and it still won't have, as it stands, incorporated many First Nations in British Columbia.

The Auditor General — again before the minister's time; it would be back in 2007 — cited a specific criticism of government in the funding, or I suppose it would be underfunding, of the treaty process. In a sense, the Auditor General referred to targeting the limited funds to the treaty process onto a few tables that were further along in the process of treaty, arguably at the expense of the other tables that were still engaged in good faith but
[ Page 6578 ]
just weren't at as high a stage as some of those close to the end stage.

Have we got anywhere beyond that? Have we accomplished anything? Were there resources put forward to address the Auditor General's valid concerns?

Hon. M. Polak: We are, as everyone else is, anxious to see treaty negotiations move ahead at a swifter pace. Certainly, aboriginal people have been extremely patient for the many, many generations that they have waited, and we certainly want to see that move forward.

We've had tremendous success in recent years. In fact, since the Auditor General's report we've seen some very important agreements come to fruition. Of course, there are the two modern-day treaties with six First Nations that are under the B.C. Treaty Commission, so the Maa-nulth treaty with five First Nations and the Tsawwassen treaty.

We also, as we have just spoken about, have signed a final treaty agreement with the Yale First Nation, which they have ratified, and a number of other treaty negotiations are really in a very advanced stage of deliberation. We now have 84 First Nations that are in stage 4. They're negotiating an agreement-in-principle, and we have three negotiating tables that are at stage 5, negotiating a final agreement. So we do seem to have reached a period of critical mass when it comes to these agreements.

Another important thing to consider is the shift that we've made to this idea of working with First Nations, where it is their wish to enter the process. In that regard, we've also had success with working toward incremental treaty agreements as well. That's something that we have been encouraged to continue by the B.C. Treaty Commission.

For example, Tla-o-qui-aht we finalized in November of '08; Klahoose, March of '09; and then we've got active discussions with the Haisla, the Cowichan Tribes, Lake Babine and Tsimshian, so many, many agreements underway. That is not to mention many of the other non-treaty agreements that we have been able to reach and that we are developing with First Nations. But I do believe that after a considerably slow beginning….

These are very extensive and important agreements that when they are complete, form part of the actual Canadian constitution and so, of course, should be given proper time and consideration for them to be completed. We do hope that we will now reach a place where the rate at which we can achieve agreement will gradually increase.

[1545]

I think we will also see a greater acceptance and a desire to participate as First Nations observe other treaties and agreements that are successful and they wish to take part in that themselves.

S. Fraser: I would note, though, that the most significant of the cuts that we were talking about earlier are 6 percent cuts to negotiations and implementation. That's in this budget. So how does that jibe with what the minister just stated? If we're having cuts, the most significant cuts in this budget, to negotiations and implementations, I don't understand how that's going to help expedite a very long and drawn-out process so far.

Hon. M. Polak: This really does reflect the shift from last year's work, which was working toward the completion of Maa-nulth and all that that entails — things like quite extensive survey work, as you can appreciate — and other types of work involved in coming to the implementation date for a treaty. There was quite a big push on in order for us to get to the implementation date. Now, of course, that's complete.

When we come to a place where we are in that position with yet another agreement, again we would receive the support to be able to do that. In the interim, we are not required at this stage as a ministry to continue with that level of intensity around our work and certainly not with things like surveying and other types of efforts.

Should it come to where we are successful in seeing the Yale treaty passed through our House and the federal House, and then if we were to be moving toward implementation, as we were with Maa-nulth, again you would see our budget reflect a contribution of funds for us to be able to accomplish that work. That's why you see the downtick from last year, because the work on Maa-nulth is complete.

S. Fraser: I am going to turn a couple of questions over to the member for Delta South in a moment. I just want to probe that for a second.

So the surveying work and such through the Maa-nulth treaty — and I understand the resources needed to deal with those sorts of things — is reflected by not being in the budget this year because that work is completed but would be returned to a budget if it were necessary with a treaty such as Yale.

[1550]

Two questions, I guess, come to mind. Is there a contingency fund for that sort of thing? Do you have to wait for the next year's budget? How do the federal counterparts in the tripartite agreement…? Did they contribute to that work too? If so, what was their contribution? Was it done as a percentage? How is that figured out?

Hon. M. Polak: I'll do the last part first. With respect to the cost share, it is 50-50 with the federal government. That's for all third-party costs associated with it. It's split 50-50 between Canada and B.C.

When it comes to the way in which this is funded for MARR, we are at the beginning of negotiations, provided with a mandate by government. At points in time when we need to secure funds, we then return to Treasury
[ Page 6579 ]
Board and seek funding within those mandates that are provided at the beginning.

It's important to remember that at the conclusion of a treaty, because British Columbia is the provider of the land and the federal government is primarily the provider of the cash, British Columbia — as a result of providing, typically, a larger share of land than it would be required to — typically comes out ahead on the financial end and actually receives a net gain financially from the federal government.

So the whole process really works together with a certain ecology, but we operate under a mandate and then return to Treasury Board occasionally to access those funds that would be made available to us.

V. Huntington: I thank the critic for giving me this opportunity to intervene shortly.

I'd like to start by congratulating both the minister and her new deputy on their appointments. Mr. Munro has many times managed to be briefing me on different aspects, in particular, of the Tsawwassen treaty, which is what I have a couple of questions on.

Recently I have been somewhat surprised to learn that in October…. Perhaps I'll preface that these questions you may not have knowledge of. They might be too specific, and you may wish to put them on notice and reply to me at some later date. I'll follow up with a letter.

[1555]

I've recently learned, to my surprise, that in October 2006, as part of the Tsawwassen First Nation treaty, the Crown apparently transferred a right of first refusal on private land to the TFN. The land is on Brunswick Point but is not part of the treaty settlement lands. The land is specifically excluded from our map showing the treaty settlement lands, and while it is adjacent to Brunswick Point lands, it is not part of the right-of-first-refusal lands at Brunswick Point.

What I'm curious about is: given the one constant throughout treaty negotiations, which was that interests in private property would not be impacted by the treaty, why did the Crown choose to transfer its right of first refusal to the TFN?

Hon. M. Polak: I thank the member for her question. I appreciate that she has made the offer that we could discuss this further at another date. It is a rather complicated issue, even down to the question as to whether or not we are discussing private lands or Crown lands and those that have been expropriated by the Crown.

For example, I can tell the member that the provincial government and the leaseholders are in the final stages of negotiations towards a settlement, and once the agreement is finalized and the court is advised, we'll be able to speak about that in more detail. I also understand that we have scheduled a briefing for the member. I think on May 10 we're meeting together to discuss it more specifically. It may be the member hasn't been advised of that yet. I just had a quick note from staff. So we will have time to canvass this in much more detail.

Again, we'll be pleased to do that once we have a greater capacity to discuss this publicly.

V. Huntington: If I could just advise the minister and the deputy, it is not the Brunswick Point lands that I'm speaking about. Those are the right-of-first-refusal lands that are specified in the treaty and are part of the treaty settlement lands. This is a piece of property adjacent to those lands that is privately owned. It was sold back to the property owner by the province many years ago. It's lot 1. I can give you the PID, if you like, so that you can…. It's lot 1, district lot 187, group 2, New Westminster district.

The province had, much to the surprise of the property owner…. He hadn't realized that the province had retained a right of first refusal in the name of the province.

[1600]

So the question is: when that right of first refusal was transferred to TFN, was there any consultation with this property owner at all, and did the province realize what they were actually doing in this instance?

Hon. M. Polak: Thank you very much for the information about the particulars. We are aware…. Again, I think it isn't part of the Brunswick lands. Nevertheless, because of the complex nature of resolving all those land issues, there are — how shall we say? — connections to all of these things. If it pleases the member, we would be happy to cover off in detail discussions about that particular item at the same time that we discuss the Brunswick Point lands — if that suits the member.

V. Huntington: Very much so. I would appreciate as much detail on this issue as is possible.

This individual was not involved in any of the discussions that have been ongoing in the courts and with the department and the land management bureau on the Brunswick Point lands — not involved at all. What has happened — and this is what I guess I would like the ministry to contemplate — is that TFN…. This landowner now wants to transfer his private parcel to his son and heir. He found out, when he went to the province to get the right of first refusal signed off, that the province had transferred it to TFN.

TFN is treating it somewhat like treaty settlement lands, and it's becoming very complicated to transfer this title and to get the agreement on the right of first refusal.

I'm wondering if the ministry could review this matter, perhaps be able to discuss it with me somewhat when we have the briefing, and perhaps be in a position to assist this landowner with TFN and this transfer.

Hon. M. Polak: We'll be happy to do that.
[ Page 6580 ]

S. Fraser: I'm back. Hello again, minister and staff.

I should have asked this before, but it just came to mind. The May budget version, if you will, has come out this morning on my desk. Then there's the original February budget. I didn't have time to go through it in any detail. I appreciate the offer made earlier by your staff to maybe have a meeting this morning, which simply wasn't possible, for me at least.

Could I get confirmation…? The numbers are the same, the bottom numbers are the same, for the ministry for both versions. But were there changes made somewhere in there? I mean, there could have been a shuffling of money to somewhere. I just want to make sure that I'm clarified on that.

Hon. M. Polak: I'm advised the only change is in some of the wording of my cover letter in the service plan.

S. Fraser: Well, I'm going to assume that wasn't really controversial, so I won't go too deep into that one.

I'm going to move to something that is very controversial, though. It's regarding Prosperity mine. I guess the question that I will ask…. This is about consultation. This is about the new relationship in a real way. Will the minister allow the Prosperity mine to go ahead without the consent of the Tsilhqot'in?

[1605]

Hon. M. Polak: I should advise the member that, in fact, the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation plays no role in approving or not approving of the Prosperity mine, should that be something that the company resubmits for approval. That approval would be the responsibility of the Canadian environmental assessment and also, if it was to proceed in British Columbia, would be the responsibility of the British Columbia environmental assessment office, but not the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation.

S. Fraser: The Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation would be responsible for, for instance, the new relationship, I would assume. Let me get that clarification.

Hon. M. Polak: Indeed, all of government is responsible for the new relationship. As I've stated in an earlier answer, the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation certainly operates as a place of coordination. Certainly, we work to support those ministries who may not have the expertise to understand or to operate within an aboriginal environment. But nevertheless, the responsibility of implementing the goals of the new relationship is across government.

S. Fraser: Fair enough. So in your advising in your capacity as minister to other ministries, the Premier's office comes to mind. The new Premier demands that this project go ahead despite the strong and clear resistance from the Tsilhqot'in. The new relationship, if the minister were to advise Christy Clark…. I believe I can still use her name, since she's not a sitting MLA yet.

Let's go back into the goals here, to goal 3: "To ensure that lands and resources are managed in accordance with First Nations laws, knowledge and values and that resource development is carried out in a sustainable manner, including the primary responsibility of preserving healthy lands, resources and ecosystems for present and future generations."

So that would not be in keeping with the new Premier's stated position on the Prosperity mine that actually affronts all…. There was no consultation when the new Premier was making these statements before, during and after her election as Premier. So will the minister comment?

Hon. M. Polak: Again, I would point out that it is, first of all, up to the proponent as to whether or not they wish to resubmit the project. At that stage it is up to the appropriate statutory authorities to review and make their decision based on their statutory obligations.

It is not something that the government…. There are statutory decision-makers. This is not something that is something accomplished through an edict from the Premier's office, which seems to be what the member is suggesting.

[1610]

S. Fraser: Well, I'm suggesting, from quotes from the Premier — that she, to my knowledge, is still holding to — that she has gone to the Prime Minister's Office as one of her first acts as the Premier to discuss overturning the environmental assessment to allow the Prosperity mine to go ahead. There was no consultation occurring with the Tsilhqot'in, with the Xeni Gwet'in. We have court decisions. Vickers's decision was in the courts for 16 years. We have Delgamuukw. We have others talking about rights and titles. And we have….

Now, the last I've heard, this government is still beholden, at least to the spirit and intent — unless it never was — of The New Relationship, which says specifically that we will "ensure that lands and resources are managed in accordance with First Nations laws, knowledge and values and that resource development is carried out in a sustainable manner, including primary responsibility of preserving healthy lands."

That consultation never happened, and that was after Christy Clark was elected as Premier. So that's a complete affront to the rights of the Tsilhqot'in, the Xeni Gwet'in.

How will the minister work to educate the new Premier on her roles and responsibility in accordance with the new relationship?
[ Page 6581 ]

Hon. M. Polak: I do want to just advise the member that, while he is focused with respect to the Prosperity mine, we have a number of other matters that we engage with the Tsilhqot'in in relation to. We do have a strategic engagement agreement with them, and we continue to have those discussions and relationship with them.

With respect to Prosperity, again, Taseko was refused by the federal government. It is up to the proponent as to whether or not they wish to resubmit the project. If they are to resubmit it, again, that's up to the appropriate statutory authorities to review and to make their decision.

S. Fraser: No, I don't agree with the minister on that, Madam Chair.

This is a government that has taken a position through the Premier that is an affront to First Nations. The decision to try to overrule a federal decision and go around the First Nation involved completely ignores the very clear opposition from the Tsilhqot'in nation, and despite their constitutionally enshrined, judicially recognized and internationally declared rights, the new Premier has completely ignored those.

She's taking the position as an advocate without any meaningful consultation, without any consultation whatsoever. She went right around the First Nations here. It's a complete affront to the spirit and intent of the new relationship and also to the court decisions and, I would submit, also an affront to international declarations.

How will the minister, as the minister responsible for Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, address that appalling shortfall? It would be putting it very lightly.

Hon. M. Polak: The member is engaging in speculation, and he's asking me to reflect on a hypothetical. At this stage, Taseko has been refused by the federal government. They have not, to my knowledge, resubmitted the project. If they were to do that, then there are statutory authorities who make decisions around approvals. There are then processes that we undertake around consultation, etc. But I cannot possibly be dealing with a hypothetical.

At this stage there is no project that is there for approval, and in any case, it is the role of statutory decision-makers to review and assess and then eventually make a decision around approval when it comes to a project such as this.

[1615]

S. Fraser: Well, this question to the minister then: does the new relationship continue with the new leadership of the Liberal government?

Hon. M. Polak: Yes. I am very pleased to advise the member that not only does the new relationship continue, but in the meeting that we had together with the First Nations Leadership Council — myself and also with the Premier — that was the primary focus of our discussion, the reinvigoration of the new relationship. There is certainly a commitment on all sides not only to see that relationship continue but to truly bring to life the goals and aspirations that are contained within that document.

S. Fraser: Well, I would note that I did a search of every statement made by Christy Clark, and there has been no public mention of the new relationship — nothing. There have been massive statements made from her around pushing through with Prosperity, regardless of the position obviously taken in opposition from the First Nations involved, from the Tsilhqot'in.

The new relationship, if it still exists, includes the great goals. Great goal No. 4 — this is the New Relationship in my hand: "To lead the world in sustainable environmental management, with the best air and water quality, and the best fisheries management, bar none." How will killing a lake comply with the spirit, intent, words, whatever, of the new relationship, especially in the face of the clear and total opposition from First Nations, the leadership council, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, from every environmental group and from the vast majority of British Columbians? How is that in keeping with the new relationship?

Hon. M. Polak: What the member describes is a project proposal that was refused by the federal government. The proponent has not resubmitted the project. At such time as the proponent does resubmit the project, there are statutory bodies that would review it and would reach their decision, as they did in the first instance.

S. Fraser: Is the minister familiar with the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples?

Hon. M. Polak: Yes. I wouldn't claim to be an expert, but I have become familiar with the document, yes.

S. Fraser: It was signed just relatively recently by the federal government, the last federal government in the universe to sign the declaration about human rights and, truly, about reconciliation. Since the signing of that important document, what resources and what instructions has your ministry provided to government, the Premier, around the implementation — at least the spirit and intent — of the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples?

[1620]

Hon. M. Polak: I thank the member for the attention to this, which is also a very important document, not only in Canada but around the world. It is true that the Canadian government has endorsed the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples — not the last country to do so. In fact, the United States has yet to endorse the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples.
[ Page 6582 ]

The Canadian government did endorse that with certain reservations, one of them being that they endorsed it within the constitution and the laws of Canada — an important distinction. There is no signing, actually. It is simply an endorsement that a country would provide to the aspirations that are within the document. That is precisely what the federal government did.

Nevertheless, certainly as an aspirational document, we do believe that in British Columbia we are actually far ahead in working with First Nations through the accomplishments over the years that we have been engaged around the new relationship. That has fundamentally altered the way in which we deal with First Nations in British Columbia.

We still have a long ways to go before we are truly achieving the goals and outcomes that have been imagined by the new relationship, but we have made significant progress. We do believe that while the federal government is the lead in terms of the UN declaration, nevertheless the work we've been doing in British Columbia through the new relationship is consistent with the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples.

S. Fraser: Well, so far, everything that I've seen on the new relationship regarding this one issue with Prosperity mine would seem to refute that. The new relationship has been put aside in favour of other values that are completely contrary to the spirit, intent and words of the New Relationship. That wouldn't put us ahead.

The opposition has taken a strong position long before the 2010 signing of the UN declaration, urging the provincial government, this government, to take a lead role and endorse and urge the federal government, when they were not signing, to sign the UN declaration, to agree to the premise of the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. This government wouldn't even bring it up for debate, so that doesn't put us at the forefront of anything when it comes to aboriginal relations.

I would suggest that section…. Going back, there is precedent for that. There are states in the United States that signed the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples even in the absence of the federal government in the United States doing so. We've got 144 nations that have signed on — Canada all but the last, if not the last — and now we have an obligation, I would suggest, certainly a moral and ethical one, to live up to the spirit and intent of that UN declaration, if not living up to the spirit and intent of the so-called new relationship.

Article 32 has been, I would point out again, flouted here. It talks about…. This is a government that has okayed the killing of a lake. You have. That's the position you've taken around the strong opposition of First Nations involved, while you have a New Relationship that says "the best…fisheries and water management, bar none." Nobody in their right mind would think that killing a lake would fit into the best fisheries and water management, bar none. That portion has been just ignored specifically and purposefully by this government.

Have you also ignored the article 32 of the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples? It is quite explicit. It talks about free, prior and informed consent. How does okaying the killing of a lake and the damaging of a watershed in a traditional territory, which is completely opposed by the Nation involved, fit into free, prior and informed consent?

[1625]

Hon. M. Polak: What the member refers to is not the results of a First Nations consultation process but rather the results of the British Columbia environmental assessment office's review of a project that now has been refused by the federal government. If that's what the member wishes to canvass, he ought to canvass that process with the Minister of Environment. It was an environmental approval process. It was not a First Nations negotiation, as would be conducted by the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation.

S. Fraser: Well, the minister is incorrect in the sense that this is an issue that is germane today because your new leader, Christy Clark, has taken action, has said publicly that she will continue to push Prosperity mine whether or not the First Nations approve. She's already gone around the Tsilhqot'in to the Prime Minister's office to try to affect that. She's taken more public position on Prosperity mine than any public mention of any other aboriginal issue — all aboriginal issues put together — in the province of British Columbia.

So it's completely germane to these discussions. The province — yes, they have an environmental assessment process, but it was basically gutted in 2002, and subsequently we come to present day where a process, a provincial assessment process okayed the killing of a lake and the potential destruction of a watershed in a traditional territory with no due respect for the First Nations involved.

Again, we have a new relationship that the minister has acknowledged is still live under the new leadership of this government. But we've seen no indication though. As a matter of fact, we've seen the complete opposite.

As it stands, the province, this government still is supporting going ahead with Prosperity mine. They've said it's okay. There has been another application put in federally, as the minister knows, and the position the province has taken is: it's a yes. They've already said yes, even if it includes the killing of a lake and the destruction of a watershed and the cultural and spiritual damage done to the Tsilhqot'in people and their rights affronted that were already established in the courts.

So again, where will the minister do her job here in stepping in for First Nations in implementing the spirit
[ Page 6583 ]
and intent of the so-called new relationship, which the minister said is still live?

[1630]

Hon. M. Polak: While I respect the fact that the Prosperity mine issue is one that brings a lot of passions to the table — I know that the member opposite is certainly one who takes very seriously his role as an advocate in this House — nevertheless, I need to remind him that this is not the estimates of the Premier, at which point the Premier could respond with respect to her own positions and her own specific comments.

This is also not the estimates of the Ministry of Environment, where it would be appropriate to ask questions with respect to the specific processes that were engaged in, in order to reach the original decision made with respect to the Prosperity mine and the impacts that the member has outlined.

From the perspective of the ministry that we are discussing today, there is no project that has been resubmitted. If there was a project resubmitted then that would be over to the appropriate statutory authorities to review and make their decisions. Certainly, as per its core mandate, the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation is always ever-watchful for the requirements and obligations that we have toward First Nations to work with them and to consult with them as is outlined by our many agreements and, also, by the laws of this land and by treaties and other agreements.

S. Fraser: Christy Clark is on record as saying that the Prosperity mine is her top priority. So there is a submission, a resubmission, as the minister is aware, to the federal government. So obviously, if it's the top priority of the Premier to move this mine forward regardless of First Nations, regardless of the issues brought forward in a federal environmental assessment, then it would be an affront to the new relationship.

There's another section of the new relationship: "To ensure that lands and resources are managed in accordance with First Nations laws, knowledge and values and that resource development is carried out in a sustainable manner, including the primary responsibility of preserving healthy lands, resources and ecosystems for present and future generations."

So that, again, is the responsibility of this government and this minister. This is the new relationship, and the Premier, the leader of this party, is on record as saying that the top priority is to push forward with Prosperity mine.

Here's from the federal environmental assessment, their non-approval, which is going back, forward, as the minister knows, and the Premier has made it a top priority. So it's very much an issue for the Tsilhqot'in, for the Xeni Gwet'in, for all First Nations who are watching this closely, and not just that, for every British Columbian that thinks it's an affront that this could go forward, that the killing of a lake could be considered as a germane thing to do.

This is what the federal assessment says: Fish and fish habitat, including destruction of approximately 90,000 rainbow trout. Grizzly bears in the South Chilcotin region will be put at risk. Navigation is at risk as it's defined by Transport Canada. The issue of traditional First Nations land use and on cultural heritage and potential aboriginal rights or title. The use of the meadows within the Teztan Yeqox — Fish Creek — watershed, who would be unable to graze their livestock in these meadows. The Xeni Gwet'in, who would be unable to trap in the mine area, and Taseko Lake Outfitters, whose ecotourism businesses will be destroyed by the mine.

I mean, it goes on and on and on and covers many more issues than just First Nations. But these are the issues that were highlighted in the federal environmental assessment that certainly don't fit in with the new relationships to ensure that lands and resources are managed in accordance with First Nations laws, knowledge and values because the First Nations have already determined that this damage will not fit in with that knowledge, those laws and those values.

Section 32 of the UN declaration on the right of indigenous peoples that we are beholden to, certainly in spirit and intent in this country, states that there is a need for free, prior and informed consent around these types of issues.

So how does the minister reconcile the Premier making a top priority, something which is an affront to the new relationship that the minister has said is still applicable and the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous people that we are beholden to?

The Chair: Hon. Member, I just want to remind you that we are discussing matters relevant to Vote 11, and we're starting to become slightly repetitious. So I just caution you on that.

[1635]

Hon. M. Polak: Again, I would remind the member that this is not the estimates for the Premier. The member is describing a project that the federal government has rejected. They have not, to my knowledge, resubmitted the proposal. If they should do so, there are statutory authorities, both federal and provincial, who would then be engaged in reviewing the project and making their decisions with respect to their obligations as statutory authorities.

B. Simpson: I do want to canvass the Prosperity mine from some slightly different angles. I'd like to understand the minister's understanding of the Crown's obligation under duty to consult with respect to major projects in the province. What is the Crown's obligation on duty to consult?
[ Page 6584 ]

[D. Hayer in the chair.]

Hon. M. Polak: The Supreme Court of Canada Haida decision probably is the best way of outlining the legal parameters that guide our consultation around land and resource usage, although that, of course, depends on whether or not there's a specific agreement in place that would have us forgo that.

B. Simpson: As the minister well knows, I'm going to be constrained on my own canvassing time, so I'm going to truncate some of this. I know it's a new file for the minister as well.

The minister has indicated a couple of times that some of the questions are hypothetical. They're not. They're where I live, and Taseko Mines has submitted a proposal to the federal government that does not involve draining the lake. Part of the reason for the…. It's currently with the Canada environmental assessment authority, and they're in dialogue with them about whether the new submission is sufficient before they make a determination as to what process they're going to use.

Part of what Taseko has indicated is that they're not going to drain the lake. They have found an alternate method to have the mine without draining the lake, believing, hopefully, that that is sufficient to deal with the First Nations' concerns.

Unfortunately — and it's what the critic is putting forward — the province of British Columbia actually approved the project that the federal government did not approve. The province of British Columbia continues to approve a project that will allow the lake to be drained, even though the proponent has indicated it no longer will drain the lake.

In terms of moving this project forward, First Nations are looking for at least some signal from the provincial government that there will be a different approach to First Nations in this case than there was last time. Otherwise — as I've indicated to Taseko, to all of the proponents involved in this and to Williams Lake chamber — this mine does not proceed.

[1640]

The opposition critic has pointed out what the new Premier has said, but regardless of bluster and bombast, this project is going nowhere.

So with that context, I'm concerned that the government is the one that's failing — not fulfilling its duty to consult. And I'm concerned that what we're going to lose is not just this one project but all mining in that region.

So my question to the minister: is one way…? In other areas of the province there has been a way to address duty to consult. It's through reconciliation agreements. Is it possible for an engagement between the government of British Columbia and the Tsilhqot'in and Xeni Gwet'in to sit down and say, "Can we build a framework here to allow resource extraction to occur within an agreed-upon reconciliation agreement?" — or some form of agreement that allows these proponents then to bring their projects in with an already existing agreement between the province and the Tsilhqot'in and the Xeni Gwet'in?

Hon. M. Polak: We are continuing along the same line of questioning, which leads me to provide a very similar answer which is that, first of all, it is not true that they have resubmitted. They are still developing a proposal and have not submitted it, to our knowledge, to the federal government at this stage. Should they do that, there are statutory authorities who engage in making decisions under their responsibility. Those are not the responsibility of the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation.

If the member wishes to discuss the environmental assessment office and its role provincially, then that's something to canvass with the Ministry of Environment.

B. Simpson: I think the minister's answer is quite disingenuous, unfortunately, because I did take it to a very specific question in that minister's file, which is the capacity and the ability to engage in discussions with the First Nations in that area about a reconciliation agreement.

Now, I'll concede that I happened to meet with Taseko twice, and they have indicated to me that they have submitted, but I have moved on from the Taseko situation.

We're talking about three other major mine potentials in that area. We're talking about a hydro line going through that area. We're talking about a bioenergy facility in that area. There are all kinds of natural resource extraction issues in that area, and we have no framework with First Nations to allow us to actually realize those extraction activities and all the benefits, other than going through the fight that we've already gone through with Prosperity mine.

So my concern is that this government's failure to deal with the Prosperity situation in an even-handed manner is creating a situation where we may lose some other activities there. My question is straight up to the minister. Is a reconciliation agreement, which is well within this minister's mandate, a possibility to give us a framework for natural resource extraction in the whole Tsilhqot'in area and the Xeni Gwet'in area? My understanding from talking to the chiefs is that they would engage in that kind of dialogue.

Hon. M. Polak: Indeed, we do have a strategic engagement agreement with the Tsilhqot'in. We, along with the Tsilhqot'in, are anxious to work to expand that to a full reconciliation agreement. Not only are we speaking with them even now, but we have not stopped engaging with
[ Page 6585 ]
them on that. We have continued to discuss with them many of the items that the member has outlined, such as the biofuels issue.

So certainly, while there is a lot of focus on Prosperity, the work of the ministry has continued with the Tsilhqot'in around a broader reconciliation strategy. Obviously, whenever one puts in place a reconciliation agreement, one would hope that that would have a positive impact on all of the other range of projects, such as the ones the member has outlined.

B. Simpson: In speaking with the chiefs, I know that they have the strategic agreement dialogue, but my understanding is that it has to be elevated in order to address some of these issues. The minister may be aware of the fact that part of the inability to elevate it is the William case and the appeals and how that muddies the waters. So that does cause us some grief.

[1645]

But my question, again — a specific question to the minister, within her portfolio…. Aside from the William case, one of the other issues is this outstanding permit for a mine that was denied by the federal government. That outstanding permit is seen as a sign of bad faith on the part of the provincial government — that it still continues to say that it's okay for a company to drain Fish Lake even though that project is no longer in existence and has been denied by the federal government.

So my question to the minister is: would she act as an advocate on behalf of her file and the new relationship and so on to try to get that permit rescinded? It's actually a permit for a project that no longer exists and would be a sign of good faith to the First Nations in that area that whatever the new proposal is, it won't be interfered with by an already existing permit for a mine that said you could drain the lake, against the direct wishes of the First Nations.

Hon. M. Polak: As a result of the proponents being unsuccessful in receiving approval from the federal level, the provincial environmental certificate is essentially moot. One cannot proceed without the approval of the federal one. Nevertheless, I just want to assure the member and assure all those listening that our main aim, from our ministry's perspective, is to continue the work that we have undertaken with the Tsilhqot'in to date.

We are certainly interested in reconciliation on a broader scale. We certainly are interested in working with them as they seek to enhance the economic opportunities that they have in their area and to do that in partnership with them. We believe that that can be accomplished. We continue to have dialogue with them, and that has not been interrupted by many of the other matters that have arisen in between times. But again, the matter of discussing the specifics around Prosperity is probably better placed to other ministers in other estimates.

S. Fraser: Thank you, hon. Chair, and welcome to the proceedings.

I guess that this whole issue around Prosperity mine and the Tsilhqot'in and aboriginal rights and the new relationship and the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples and court decisions begs the question. You have so much information as a ministry responsible for aboriginal relations and reconciliation, and you've got stated positions that you take as a government, and you would be the lead ministry to effect these, whether it's the new relationship, whether it's the UN declaration or whether it's changes that occur through the legal system, through court decisions.

[1650]

So I guess I have to question the minister: how do you do that? It doesn't seem to be working at all. Do you have resources that are designated towards trying to see that the lens of these values is applied in some sort of a fair way by the ministries or, in this case, by the Premier, who seems to be ignoring or not aware of the new relationship — in her actions, at least? Maybe in her words but not in her actions. So what resources…? How do you accomplish the values laid out in the new relationship or in the newly signed UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples or in court decisions?

Hon. M. Polak: Of course, the success and the progress that we've made with respect to the new relationship is primarily apparent in the wide range of agreements that we have been able to conclude with First Nations, and they are not merely treaty agreements. They are agreements that take us to a position where we not only are making non-treaty agreements with First Nations, but in other ministries we're signing memoranda of understanding. We are providing for education agreements.

It is about coming to a place where, rather than going to court, we are able to sit down and work together and come to an agreement nation to nation, as opposed to having to be in court and having those things determined by a court rather than the partners involved.

S. Fraser: Then how many…? Are there court cases ongoing now with the Crown, with the province and First Nations — aboriginal issues?

Hon. M. Polak: As the member can no doubt appreciate, as the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, we don't have a complete list. There are very many issues that involve First Nations and litigation that don't specifically involve MARR, others that do, but that would be something that he would be able to get from the Ministry of the Attorney General.

S. Fraser: Well, I'm somewhat surprised by the minister's response. The minister just cited getting away from fighting in the courts as some means to quantify the success
[ Page 6586 ]
of the new relationship, which seems to be being ignored in this and, certainly, in the case we're talking about with Prosperity mine, but she can't provide any basis for that statement? Is there not ongoing litigation? Are there not ongoing court cases with…?

I know I've pursued this line of questioning in previous estimates with the previous minister or the minister before him. So can the minister find that information out?

I shouldn't have to go to the Solicitor General. She raised it — the fact that we should avoid going to courts. That's the example that she gave that the new relationship was a success. So will that information be made available to me?

Hon. M. Polak: I was not specifically citing numbers of pieces of litigation as a measure of success. I was citing the number of agreements we've made as a measure of success, because that certainly is a very different situation than what has occurred in the past.

[1655]

Two modern-day treaties with six First Nations, a final agreement with the Yale First Nation, 84 First Nations in stage 4, negotiating an agreement-in-principle. Three negotiating tables are at stage 5, negotiating a final agreement. There are numerous other types of agreements that we have made with First Nations. That indeed shows many of the examples of success of the new relationship.

With respect to ongoing litigation, we would only be able to provide you with a very incomplete picture. It is not the individual ministries that manage their litigation. It is the Attorney General that manages litigation on behalf of government. So while we could give you an incomplete picture, truly, to make best use of our time in estimates, it would be more productive for the member…. Although I'm happy to provide you with what we have, I'm simply suggesting that it would be more productive for the member to canvass that through the Attorney General.

S. Fraser: Well, maybe it would be more helpful. Let's go to Tsilhqot'in v. British Columbia. That's with Justice Vickers. You know, Chief William…. I think 16 years in the courts before that decision was arrived at by Judge Vickers in 2007. The court was not able to make a declaration of the Tsilhqot'in aboriginal title for claim area because of just the complex context of the proceedings but offered the opinion that aboriginal title does exist inside and outside the claim area.

I will cite a quote from Judge Vickers. "The present Canadian community is now faced with the challenge of acknowledging past wrongs and of building a consensual and lasting reconciliation with aboriginal people."

So that decision came down with a specific recommendation from Judge Vickers. How has the ministry incorporated that advice based on a very significant court decision?

Hon. M. Polak: The member is correct. This certainly was a very lengthy process, I believe, going back to something like 1991 when it all began. The member is likely aware that the appeals on the William case took place in the fall, and we are currently awaiting from the B.C. Court of Appeal a judgment, which has been reserved. So I do have to be cautious, as I'm sure the member understands, with respect to commenting at that time.

But I would refer the member back to earlier comments that I have made about our desire to continue with the dialogue and the work that we have been engaged with, with the Tsilhqot'in, around broader reconciliation strategies.

S. Fraser: Can the minister clarify? The appeal — was that the province and the federal government? Was it one or the other? Who engaged in the appeal of the Vickers decision?

[1700]

Hon. M. Polak: In fact, oddly enough, all three parties appealed the decision for different reasons — the federal government, the provincial government and the Tsilhqot'in.

S. Fraser: Justice Vickers said that the recognition of the longstanding presence of the Tsilhqot'in people in the claim area is simple, straightforward and an acknowledged fact. Then he went on to say: "What is clear to me is that the impoverished view of aboriginal title advanced by Canada and British Columbia, characterized by the plaintiff as a postage-stamp approach, cannot be allowed to pervade and inhibit genuine negotiations."

Then he goes on to say that "denial or avoidance of this constitutional responsibility is unacceptable if there is to be a just reconciliation in this era of decolonization."

So the specific suggestion to all parties involved, including the province, following that 16-year court case…. Does the ministry assess this? It is about reconciliation. It's actually the word used by Justice Vickers. Besides appealing it…. Justice Vickers suggested that "after a trial of this duration it would be tragic if reconciliation were postponed through seemingly endless appeals. The time to reach an honourable resolution and reconciliation" — again, that word — "is with us today."

It is not with us today. Those were words from 2007.

Again, the spirit and intent of the words of the decision of the acknowledgment of existence of rights of titles were clearly laid out in the court decision. So where does the ministry implement those changes as they occur?

In the context, it's a court decision. It's a change — the judgment is being made — just as a change when Canada
[ Page 6587 ]
signs the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous people, just as when the province brings forward the so-called new relationship as a guide.

How does the ministry effect these changes? I would submit it's not working out very good — in this case, certainly.

Hon. M. Polak: We certainly have not allowed the appeal to halt our work toward reconciliation. In fact, even while litigation was continuing we negotiated a strategic engagement agreement that covers consultation on all the lands, all consultation outside the litigation area. We also, with the Tsilhqot'in, have a forest and range opportunities agreement.

As I've outlined, the dialogue, the discussion, the development of agreements, continue with the Tsilhqot'in in spite of the litigation that's been ongoing. At this stage we await the judgment that has been held in reserve.

[1705]

S. Fraser: I will move off of this subject, but first I just have to make the comment. The Prosperity mine issue is an important one. It is, by anyone's estimation, an affront to the new relationship. "The best water and fisheries management, bar none…." I mean, it would be laughable if it wasn't so tragic to have a government that actually okayed a mine when we have a new relationship that says First Nations would be respected and be supplied with the best fisheries and water management, bar none. This is one of many examples in the new relationship. It is a problem that that is being defended as somehow being in compliance with the new relationship.

We have a UN declaration that says specifically…. It talks about the importance of, the necessity for free, prior and informed consent. Again, this is a mining proposal that went forward without the free, prior and informed consent of aboriginal peoples in the area, without any consent from any aboriginal peoples in the province, including the leadership council — so a direct affront there.

I would suggest that this defies…. The proposal going forward as it does also defies an historic court decision, the Vickers decision. I'd suggest that if it's not this ministry that's going to start implementing these documents — the spirit and intent of them, at least — these court decisions, then who is?

You are the lead. You are the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, and this is all about relations and reconciliation. It's not been a very good relationship, and it certainly hasn't shown any reconciliation.

To finish this off, we still have a Premier, a new Premier, that has made it a top priority to move this project forward. How will the minister, how will the ministry ensure that the mistakes that have been made in the past and that look like, according to the new Premier, will be made again aren't; that free, prior and informed consent are actually achieved; that meaningful negotiations with the Tsilhqot'in, with the Xeni Gwet'in will occur if this process is to proceed?

The minister has said to the previous questioning that there's been no application. There has. There's been a federal application. The minister is shaking her head. I suggest: go back to the books on that. I've seen the literature on this. I'm very sure that there has been an application to the federal government, so we'll need to confirm that also.

If that's the case, it is not a moot point that we have a provincial environmental assessment that's basically left on the table as a blanket yes. If that's not removed from the table as a blanket yes, then the province is guilty, I would submit, of continuing to ignore the Vickers decision, the new relationship and the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. I would urge the ministry and the minister to take a lead role in making sure that that does not happen.

With that, I'm going to just take a pause while a colleague asks a few questions. I'm not sure on what.

D. Donaldson: Thank you to my colleague and critic for giving me a few moments to ask a couple of questions pertinent not just to the northwest but overall in the province.

Thank you to the minister and to the staff for coming out today.

I must disagree with the minister. I don't believe everything is rosy in the new relationship deal to date. The failure, especially of this government, on the certainty question around the land issue has resulted in millions of dollars of lost investment in the northwest and, I'm sure, in other parts of the province too.

My question in regards to this budget estimate pertains to that — my first question around Vote 11, especially around negotiations and implementation. I must say I'm dismayed that under Vote 11 all three sections have been cut, not by huge amounts but a cut in the budgets for these very important responsibilities.

[1710]

My question is around the Gitanyow First Nation and, under Vote 11, cross-government coordination of First Nations consultation and accommodation. The Gitanyow are in discussion around the northern transmission line as we speak. That's going to be a very important infrastructure project for the people of the northwest and the First Nations of the northwest. I know the minister realizes how important it is.

With the Gitanyow First Nation, over a third of the transmission line will be built on their traditional territories, and that essentially involves a hundred kilometres of line. Now, what the Gitanyow found recently in their negotiations is that a preponderance or a major-
[ Page 6588 ]
ity of this hundred kilometres of line, 60-odd kilometres, has been awarded in a direct-award contract to a neighbouring First Nation.

You can imagine the kind of conflict that this creates, when the Gitanyow, in their traditional territories, feel that they should benefit from economic activity in their territories. In fact, they've written a letter, and I'm going to quote a little bit from this.

The Gitanyow who wrote this was "shocked that a Crown corporation would ignore the conclusions of the courts and the provincial government with respect to the Gitanyow strength of claim on their territories. The Gitanyow view a direct award for work on their territory as an important component of the compensation package for the infringement of Gitanyow constitutional rights and unavoidable impacts on Gitanyow land and resources. To the extent that the Crown was aware of this decision, we point out that the Crown provided an undertaking to B.C. Supreme Court that they would abide by the court's determinations."

Obviously, this is of great concern to all in the northwest — not simply or solely First Nations but to other residents of the northwest, to potential mining development in the northwest, to the communities.

My question to the minister is: what steps are you undertaking to rectify this situation under the activities in Vote 11 as described in this budget estimate?

Hon. M. Polak: I'll go at this sort of in two parts, and hopefully, I can address the questions that you've asked.

Firstly, where we're at with Gitanyow. We believe we have a very solid position with them that we've negotiated around shared decision-making, economic opportunities, revenue from carbon credits and also commitments around revenue-sharing that we were hopeful and, I think, still are hopeful can be put together with an agreement that B.C. Hydro is working to negotiate with them.

We understand that there has been difficulty between the Gitanyow and B.C. Hydro as those negotiations have proceeded. Nevertheless, our understanding is that they are still in discussion, and we are hopeful that they will be able to successfully conclude those negotiations to the satisfaction of both parties.

In terms of MARR's particular role, we have proceeded with respect to those components and believe that we have a very solid agreement insofar as what we have already been able to conclude with the Gitanyow.

[1715]

With respect to your question around Vote 11 and the negotiations and implementation budget…. I don't mean this as a criticism at all. I know in the House that you come; you go; you do the portions that you can when you are in the room. We did canvass this with the critic earlier.

So to explain the impact on the negotiations and implementation budget, the reason there is a decrease in that budget is for the most part made up of the shift from the completion of Maa-nulth. As you can appreciate, as we got up to the implementation date for Maa-nulth, there was a significant push to complete all the different work around that, be that surveying or many of the other pieces that need to be put in place before a treaty implementation date. Now that Maa-nulth is complete, our budget, then, for that component of our work drops down.

Should we end up in a position, such as with Yale, where we're back to getting ready for implementation, then again, as has been the practice in the past, our budget would reflect the additional work that would be involved in getting there. So the appearance of the budget for negotiation and implementation is largely a reflection of the fact that we completed the work on Maa-nulth.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for that clarification from the minister and the staff. I would like to point out that the recognition and reconciliation agreement with the Gitanyow is still not finalized. I realize that MARR is working on that. From the other aspect of the question, the coordination of cross-government First Nations consultation and accommodation, B.C. Hydro is a Crown corporation solely, the sole shareholder being the province of B.C.

I would emphasize the importance of those negotiations. I realize that Gitanyow is meeting with B.C. Hydro to try to conclude a deal, but in the past Gitanyow has asked for high-level meetings with the government. I hope that the minister will take those seriously because it's a very important topic for our area, and it could lead to unnecessary delays that we can't afford right now.

My second question has to do with, again, Vote 11 — around the negotiation of treaties. Another First Nation in the area that I represent in Stikine, the Gitxsan, are in treaty negotiations with this government. At this point they are working on a membership list, which I know the minister realizes is a very important part of finalizing a treaty. Who benefits? Who should be enrolled? Those kinds of questions. That is dependent on a membership list.

The Gitxsan are negotiating that right now, and they want to take an incremental approach to a legal agreement and are concerned that the funds for working on that kind of topic are available. Under Vote 11, will those funds be available for membership list work, specifically with the Gitxsan?

[1720]

Hon. M. Polak: As I'm sure the member appreciates, there is much to be discussed with respect to identifying membership for the purposes of eligibility and enrolment and, indeed, for a ratification process if one were ever to be voting on a final agreement leading to a treaty.
[ Page 6589 ]

When it comes to Gitxsan, we believe we still have a long way to go to get to where we finalize those discussions. We are negotiating with them ongoing around many issues. This is one of them.

At such time as issues of eligibility and enrolment begin to be implicated by where we are at in a treaty process, then there is funding available for precisely those things, when we need to make sure that there is a determination made and that all of that is prepared in order to be ready for a treaty settlement agreement and also for final ratification.

D. Donaldson: Thank you again to the minister and staff. This is ongoing and, again, the funding that they seek would no doubt lead to fewer delays in reaching a final treaty settlement. I didn't hear whether that funding was available in the minister's answer, but I will take her answer as is and would like to move on to one final question. That would be around the First Nations trust and the All Nations Trust.

Could the minister describe, as far as budget responsibility and budget estimates generally, but more on responsibility: does the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation have any responsibility in regards to the First Nations trust and the All Nations Trust?

Hon. M. Polak: With respect to the All Nations Trust, that's an aboriginal capital corporation that was established under the auspices of the federal government. It's not a Crown. The only involvement that we have with them is that they do deliver, on our behalf, a loan forgiveness program, but we don't have any influence over their decision-making processes. Indeed, they're independent of us.

With respect to the First Nations trust, is the member asking about the new relationship trust?

[1725]

D. Donaldson: Yeah.

Hon. M. Polak: Okay. Then I will seek to provide an answer to you shortly if that's….

D. Donaldson: Sure.

Hon. M. Polak: The new relationship trust was established as a trust fund, beginning with $100 million from the province. It was established for capacity-building amongst First Nations. In our role as government, not specifically as MARR, government appoints two members to their board, but they operate independently and make their decisions independently, and it isn't a part of MARR's specific responsibility.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for that answer.

On the loan forgiveness program with the All Nations Trust, is there a liability component to the provincial government on that, if that's a program that you indicated that the provincial government is involved in?

Hon. M. Polak: There's no outstanding liability for government because we provide a fixed amount of cash, and then they make the decisions as to how to distribute it.

G. Coons: Minister, congratulations on your new portfolio. It's going to be a tough and interesting one.

[P. Pimm in the chair.]

I do have a few questions about language and culture. Part of the purpose of the ministry is to support and revitalize aboriginal language and culture. Recently the First Peoples Heritage, Language and Culture Council, or the First Peoples Council, had a report put out talking about the status of B.C. First Nations languages, and it's pretty shocking. It talks about a troubling state in British Columbia.

Dr. Lorna Williams, who is the chair of the First Peoples Council, says: "The cultural and linguistic diversity of B.C. is a priceless treasure for all humanity, and this report shows that more must be done to protect it." There's concrete evidence that we've known for some time, and all First Nations languages in B.C. are in a critical state.

Through this First Peoples Heritage, Language and Culture Council…. The funding has been cut for the coming year by 11 percent, so I'm just wondering what the minister is going to do to ensure that the mandate of her ministry looks at revitalizing First Nations languages throughout B.C., especially with this report. Is the minister concerned about this report?

[1730]

Hon. M. Polak: Certainly, I wholeheartedly agree with the member with respect to the importance that language and culture play for aboriginal people. Coming from past work in the Ministry of Children and Family Development, I know how very important language and culture can be in the development of children and the development of communities more broadly.

It's important to note that British Columbia certainly does have a wealth of First Nations languages and culture. B.C. is home to 60 percent of First Nations languages in Canada, with 32 languages and 61 dialects, and most of those are critically endangered. So it is very important that this support is there.

In terms of the budget projections that the member is referencing in the report, the funding coming from the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation is being maintained. As one looks through, one can see that it appears they are projecting that they may not receive funding from some various other entities. However,
[ Page 6590 ]
we continue to work with them, as we believe that there are areas such as, for example, Department of Canadian Heritage. In all likelihood, with a successful application, they would again receive funding from them. This, again, is their projection.

But we continue to work with them when it comes to organizations such as that, to which they would have to make application for grants, etc. We will be working with them and, hopefully, will be as successful as we have in past years at seeing them receive grants.

The funding coming from the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation has been maintained.

G. Coons: That's not too reassuring to the First Nations language issues throughout the province. When you look at, as I mentioned, a funding cut for next year of 11 percent and the next year in 2012…. Sorry, since 2009 they've lost 21 percent. When we look at the numbers in the summary financials for the First Peoples Council, the March '12 forecast is even more dismal.

I think it's a huge concern, and I think that the minister has an obligation to ensure that the other entities involved in the revenues have some sort of obligation or the ministry has some sort of obligation to ensure core funding for these programs.

So the minister's response of saying that the MARR's amounts are remaining the same, but there are significant losses for the next three or four years. Is the minister actively…? Can she reassure those with the First Peoples Council and those that wrote the report that there is going to be concrete work in restoring the funding? What is the minister actively doing?

[1735]

Hon. M. Polak: Again, I just want to stress for the member that we do certainly recognize the significant work that is done, and we recognize the importance of protecting languages and culture for First Nations. That's why the cuts that the member references — the reductions in funding — are not from the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation.

To give the member an idea of just exactly what I was referencing: yes, they are concrete actions. For example, as we have worked with First Peoples, we've addressed things like making application to various organizations. The Department of Canadian Heritage, for example, just in December announced that there would be a further $830,000 coming to British Columbia for languages. We anticipate that a significant amount of that would be directed toward First Peoples, for example.

As you look across the projections, these things do evolve each and every year. There are applications made for various grants. That is nothing new in terms of the way in which things function for First Peoples. Every year we work with them to assist them in achieving successful grant applications for these various organizations. But again, I want to emphasize that from our ministry, we have maintained their funding and do not foresee a decrease or reduction in their funding from the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation.

G. Coons: Again, not too reassuring, as the cuts seem to keep going and going, year after year. That was a good segue, I think, for the minister, because I now want to look at the first citizens fund. The first citizens fund looks at aboriginal languages and cultures and how vital they are to building strong and healthy communities.

I notice that in the first citizens fund there is going to be a decrease of 8 percent in this fund; and then up to 2012-2013, a 24 percent cut; and then that 24 percent cut maintained to 2013-2014. I'm just curious as to how the minister made the decision to cut the first citizens funds. What initiatives were cut out of that fund?

Hon. M. Polak: The first citizens fund, of course, was established back in 1969. At that time the original investment was $25 million. It is held in a special account, and the revenues, of course, are generated as they would be with any kind of endowment or fund of that nature. In 2001 the first citizens fund was doubled to reflect a commitment that was made by the incoming government. At that point it had risen to a value of $36 million, and that was doubled by government to $72 million.

But with respect to the member's referencing of cuts, the ministry has not cut the first citizens fund. The revenues have been smaller coming in because interest rates are lower. When interest rates go up, then the revenues that come in…. What the member would be looking at, in terms of the numbers going down, is because interest rates have gone down. Therefore, the returns coming from the fund are lower. If interest rates were to rise, then you would see that number also rise.

[1740]

We are not cutting the first citizens fund. This is simply a reflection of lower interest rates, which means that the interest generated — and, therefore, the revenues generated — is lower.

G. Coons: Looking at the resource summary for the first citizens fund, it looks like it's about $4 million in 2010-2011, and down to $3.6 million, down 8 percent. Then 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 it's down to just over $3 million, which is a 24 percent decrease.

If you're going by market value, you know, I think that you're sort of a bit out of touch with what's going on here as far as your estimates and what your plans are for the next three years, when you've got an 8 percent decrease and for the next two years a 24 percent decrease from last year. I find that a bit hard to believe, among many things in this House that I find hard to believe. Again, I'll let the minister respond to that.
[ Page 6591 ]

I do also want to talk about the B.C. language initiative. That is funded through the first citizens fund. I'm wondering if there are going to be any cuts to that. They normally get approximately $600,000 per year, and I'm wondering what it's going to be for the coming year and the projections for the next coming years for the BCLI.

Hon. M. Polak: I'll just respond to the first piece while we're gathering together the notes on the second question. When we say it's tied to interest rates, it's not as simple as putting this into, say, a tax-free savings account and then interest rates go up and down. Much of this is long-term bonds that were purchased back when the fund was initially set up — bonds that then mature at various different times.

Of course, you're impacted not only by the interest rates but also by the maturity date of the specific bond. The '12-13 number is a projection based on what we anticipate with respect to those bonds and other investments. But this is, again…. They're not cuts. This is simply a reflection of the changes in revenue as a result of the changes in interest rates and the value of the investments that were made to support it. With that, I will take a moment to gather the information for your other question.

The First Peoples Heritage, Language and Culture Council delivers that program under a transfer under agreement from the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. As a result of our funding to them remaining the same and our transfer under agreement remaining in place with them, there should be no change to that particular program.

[1745]

G. Coons: Just one last question. I've been talking to a few people who have been applying, and there's been a closure of applications. The question is: will BCLI be offered this year, and when?

Hon. M. Polak: Actually, it would be the First Nations heritage, language and culture commission that would have the answer to that. But we would be happy to search that out for you and to be able to provide you with that information.

S. Fraser: I just want to step in on what my colleague was talking about. The minister responded by saying that there were no cuts in the first citizens fund. It was the same answer that I got with the friendship centres.

I guess that technically, legally, she's correct, but on the ground there's an 8 percent cut, whether it's to friendship centres or whether it's to other programs. I mean, they're receiving 8 percent less now from the trust. That's the way it hits them.

When it comes to friendship centres, it's an organization, as we've talked about, that is chronically underfunded for the work they do — the increasing work they do and the increasing costs that are foisted upon them by the realities of life in British Columbia in the last decade.

These are cuts. If you're balancing the books and trying to provide programs and keep people employed, doing the good work in a friendship centre or whatever, if you're receiving 8 percent less, that's a cut. To not recognize it as such or to call it something else because it's not coming out of your budget…. It is a cut.

I'd just like the minister to maybe comment on that.

Hon. M. Polak: With all due respect, the answer was not the same at all. It didn't even resemble the answer around the B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres.

The answer with respect to the friendship centres was that we have maintained their budget. We cannot at this time afford to increase their budget, but we have maintained their budget.

The answer with respect to the first citizens fund is that it is not funding that is directed from MARR. It is revenue that is generated from a fund that was established back in 1969. It was established for the purpose of retaining the endowment and then providing the revenues generated from the investments.

So each and every year, going back before the days when our government was in place, this fund has always functioned based on the revenues that are generated. They go up, they go down, depending on the level of interest that is allocated from the federal government and also dependent upon the types of bonds and investment vehicles that are employed by the fund. It's an entirely different circumstance than the friendship centres.

With respect to the First Peoples Heritage, Language and Culture Council…. I apologize. I misspoke before and referred to them as a commission. I'm still memorizing all my acronyms, but I'm doing my very best.

With respect to the First Peoples Heritage, Language and Culture Council, in respect of MARR's funding, again, we have not made reductions in MARR's funding. The First Peoples Heritage, Language and Culture Council receives funding from a broad range of organizations. We work with them in order to help them make successful applications for grants and other funding through other programs.

It appears we have been successful when it comes to the Department of Canadian Heritage in that they have announced in December that British Columbia will be receiving a further $830,000. We anticipate a significant amount of that will be going to the First Peoples Heritage, Language and Culture Council.

[1750]

Again, insofar as MARR, there have been no cuts. We have not cut their funding.
[ Page 6592 ]

S. Fraser: I guess, to the minister then, the B.C. friendship centres have received less from the first citizens fund this year than last year. No? Okay. All right.

Has the friendship centre program fund been reduced in any way? How about in restriction of use? Has that been changed — the mandate for accessing that fund? Is it not more focused toward economic development activities rather than…? Has there been a change there and, if so, who made that decision and why?

Hon. M. Polak: This year there's been no reduction. Each friendship centre will receive…. I believe it is $25,000 each this year, as they ought to, from the first citizens fund. That remains the same. There's no reduction this year.

As far as the transfer under agreement, we are still finalizing that with them, as we would do every year. We don't anticipate any significant changes.

S. Fraser: While we're talking about cuts, hon. Chair, there's a 10 percent cut in the budget under strategic initiatives. What is that? What is the cut, and what impact will that have? There wasn't any clarification.

Hon. M. Polak: This actually reflects back to one of the discussions we had right off the top around the reduction to the ministry's budget. So, largely, this is made up of reducing operating costs such as office, travel, managing staffing cost through attrition and some small reductions to grants.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that clarification. Then there's also a cut, while we're on it again, to community and socioeconomic development. It shows another reduction, too, so I might as well clarify that while we're at it.

Hon. M. Polak: With respect to the community and socioeconomic development, the $223,000 decrease, that reflects a decision on the part of the federal government to provide in total the treaty-related measures funding as opposed to the 50-50 share that we had in the past. So that is no longer reflected in our budget because it's now funded through the feds.

S. Fraser: What impact would that have — socioeconomic? I mean, certainly that seems to be a category that we talked about before — trying to close the socioeconomic gap of First Nations aboriginal people in British Columbia. So is that going to have an impact? It sounds like it will.

[1755]

Hon. M. Polak: It shouldn't, because it's simply a matter of the federal government footing the bill, as opposed to the province.

S. Fraser: For clarification from the minister, that reduction of $200,000 plus will be made up by the federal government. Is that the idea?

Hon. M. Polak: Yes, that's correct.

S. Fraser: I note the hour is getting close here.

I attended an event, quite a moving event, with the Wet'suwet'en First Nation in northern B.C., who are united with all northern British Columbia First Nations. Mr. Chair, 65 bands and nations have signed a declaration of opposition to the pipeline and tanker traffic associated with Enbridge, a dual pipeline going through all the traditional territories. The Wet'suwet'en have a very significant traditional territory, which will be trespassed, potentially, by this project, so there is no support.

I've done quite a bit of research on this. There's absolutely no support from First Nations. The risk to their traditional territories is extreme, and the benefit is not. They have signed a declaration, as have others — the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs too — strongly opposing the proposal by Enbridge. Will the minister allow this project to go forward without the free, prior and informed consent, as we've talked about before in the UN declaration, considering that all First Nations have said "absolutely not" to this project?

Hon. M. Polak: The Enbridge project, of course, is undergoing a full Canadian environmental assessment to meet their strict requirements. Both the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the National Energy Board Act come into play there.

This is a very long process. It's likely to take years to complete. The joint review panel has asked Enbridge to provide additional information before the process can continue. Once Enbridge files that additional information, then the joint review panel is expected to issue a hearing order to outline the timeline of the review and information, then, about how people can participate and voice their concerns.

S. Fraser: I know the EA process, and it's going forward again. The First Nations have already said that this is too great of a risk. I don't know if the minister has learned about the risks. I mean, they're all risks. There's no benefit, not to British Columbia and certainly not to the First Nations, and the risks are massive. There are over a thousand rivers, streams that this pipeline would have to cross — all of them tributaries, potentially, to the Skeena, the Fraser. Of course, the tanker traffic we already know about. The people of British Columbia have spoken on that repeatedly in referendum and stuff.

The First Nations have taken a completely united position, saying no, at this point they will not be providing any support for this. Why is the process going forward
[ Page 6593 ]
without their free, prior and informed consent, as required in this article 32 of the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples?

Hon. M. Polak: Of course, this is a federal process that I have just outlined to the member, and we certainly, as a province, would encourage First Nations not only to remain involved and to voice their opinion but to voice that opinion about Enbridge's project to the joint review panel. That is the place where, at the current time, that would take place.

Again, this is a federal process. It is only just underway. It is going to take years and years. You can ask more specifically about the British Columbia involvement when discussing that with both the provincial Ministry of Environment or, indeed, with the Ministry of Energy and Mines.

[1800]

[D. Horne in the chair.]

S. Fraser: I don't think I need to remind the minister that the Prosperity proposal — I mean, the environmental assessment — was also federal as well as provincial, so the province still had a role. But I guess the question is: how does this jibe with…? Why are we moving forward with a project without the support of the First Nations whose traditional territory it would impact?

And impact it would — whether it's the coastal First Nations, who have all spoken as one, or the interior northern First Nations, who have all spoken as one, or all of the non–First Nations communities, for that matter, that have all spoken as one.

I would remind the minister again that The New Relationship says: "To ensure that lands and resources are managed in accordance with the First Nations laws, knowledge and values…." So that's already an affront there. First Nations have said no.

Actually, the second goal would also apply here: "To achieve First Nations self-determination through the exercise of their aboriginal title, including realizing the economic component of aboriginal title, and exercising their jurisdiction over the use of the land and resources through their own structures."

That's been done by all of the First Nations. They have spoken as one. The second goal has been met by First Nations. Is that just to be ignored as we roll through this process?

Once again, I have a hard time reconciling what is very clearly written in The New Relationship or, for that matter, in the UN declaration, and we're still just rolling ahead as though their comments never even existed.

Hon. M. Polak: Once again, I would emphasize that this is a federal review process. It is not up to the province to be telling the federal government which projects they might or might not review. That is determined by the federal government, and currently it is within the Canadian environmental assessment, and it is under that federal review process.

I can assure the member that when it comes to the role that MARR plays and our work with First Nations, we have the same kinds of concerns and expectations around consultation that are outlined by First Nations. We take very seriously our obligations as have been laid out by various court proceedings, by the goals and aspirations of The New Relationship document. But this is, at this stage, being reviewed by a federal process, not by a provincial one. It is not for the province to be telling the federal government that they ought not to be engaging in their own statutory processes.

S. Fraser: Fair enough. I disagree that there's no role for the province here. I mean, it's the province. We are the doormat to the traditional territories of many First Nations; 65 First Nations in British Columbia will be the doormat for a project from Alberta.

There's nothing happening in between except risk across the entire province. The risk is real; the risk is documented. The risk happens every year, multiple times, from Enbridge, and the First Nations know it, so they've said no.

That has been ignored as though their voice never even occurred. So I disagree fundamentally when the minister suggests that consultation is occurring, that The New Relationship is somehow being adhered to. I don't see that. I don't see it.

Whether it's the tanker traffic that's being opposed by First Nations, whether it's their traditional territories that are being put at massive risk, I believe they have a right to a say in what happens on their territory — not for the process to just roll ahead as though they didn't say anything.

I guess that on that, which was more of a…. Not a question, just a rhetorical statement, I suppose.

I have a question that I am unaware of in the budget. It may just be because I didn't see it, but are there any funds attached to this budget for First Nations agricultural development? If you could help me there, that would be appreciated.

[1805]

Hon. M. Polak: There's nothing specifically in the budget of the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation that would go specifically to aboriginal agriculture.

I do want to address briefly, though, a couple of the comments that the member made in that last statement.

First of all, I did not at any point suggest that consultations are underway with First Nations. Those words did not pass my mouth. What I said was that there is a federal process. I outlined which agencies of the federal government are engaged in that process, and I also ex-
[ Page 6594 ]
pressed the fact that from MARR's perspective we, too, have concerns that we would expect to see the appropriate consultations take place.

We expect and are concerned whenever there is risk associated. Whenever there are concerns raised by First Nations, of course we're concerned, and of course we look to be involved at the appropriate time. But at this stage it is a federal decision to review this, not a provincial one. It is in a federal process, not a provincial one.

S. Fraser: I'm aware of the time, so I'll finish off, but I'll finish off….

The minister is finishing off by just suggesting the difference here, whether it's opening up the tanker traffic in explicit opposition from coastal First Nations, whether it's putting their traditional territories at risk by the Enbridge pipeline or whether it's destroying a lake, potentially destroying a watershed in Tsilhqot'in territory. The difference is that it's not just a federal thing. It is the provincial government, your government that is promoting these projects, whether it's tanker traffic, whether it's the Enbridge pipeline or whether it's the Prosperity mine.

It's being done with the explicit refusal of support from First Nations for all the right reasons laid out in The New Relationship, in the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous people and affirmed by court cases, multiple court cases.

I don't believe the minister can get away by saying that it's a federal issue, not when her government is promoting these projects. That would be evasive at the very least.

With that, I do note the time, and I know we have to have a closure here, so I shall take my seat.

Vote 11: ministry operations, $35,010,000 — approved.

Vote 12: treaty and other agreements funding, $40,021,000 — approved.

Hon. M. Polak: I move that the committee rise, report the resolution and completion of the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:09 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 © 2011: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN 1499-2175