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)

Thursday, June 2, 2011

Morning Sitting

Volume 24, Number 4

[ Page 7827 ]

THURSDAY, JUNE 2, 2011

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

R. Sultan: I would like to introduce several guests who are in the gallery this morning, beginning with Woody Hayes, chartered accountant, past president of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of B.C. and a public policy volunteer representing the many thousands of accountants in our province.

Glenn Martin is executive director of the Consulting Engineers of B.C., representing the thousands of consulting engineers in our province. Steve Fleck is a professional engineer with Stantec and incoming vice-president of the Consulting Engineers of B.C.

Harlan Kelly is counsellor for the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia, which enforces standards of conduct among engineers and geoscientists in our province, as well as being vice-president of technology for Opus DaytonKnight Ltd. consulting engineers.

[1005]

Jerome Marburg is deputy executive director and general counsel of the Architectural Institute of British Columbia, representing the thousands of architects in our province.

Finally, I'm also informed that a representative of the British Columbia Dental Association may be in the precincts, representing the thousands of dentists in our province.

These professionals have a deep interest in the legislative proceedings of this House. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. McIntyre: I may be jumping the gun a slight bit here. I have a school visit today from Myrtle Philip Community School in Whistler, and I just had the pleasure of talking to the 27 grade 5 students and a contingent of parents who are here supporting them. I think they're about to enter, but I have duty in the little House in a moment, so I just wanted to make sure that the House made them feel welcome and maybe give them a little clap or a wave when they come in shortly.

Point of Order
(Speaker's Ruling)

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, on Wednesday, June 1, the House Leader of the official opposition rose on a point of order relating to an earlier announcement of the Government House Leader concerning an alteration to the schedule that was tabled with the time allocation motion passed by the House, relating to Standing Order 81.1(2).

The motion itself outlined in broad terms the bills and estimates which the government wishes to complete and dispose of on or before Thursday, June 2, at or before 5:30 p.m. The schedule tabled with the motion outlines in some detail the time limits for completion of business contemplated in the main motion.

It has been well established in all Commonwealth jurisdictions that the arrangement of the House business is the sole prerogative of the Government House Leader. Indeed, it's the Chair's view that the schedule referred to is the Government House Leader's plans for the timing of the unfinished business of the House. As such, the Government House Leader is entitled to adjust the schedule as necessity arises. His power in this area is not open to question.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL M215 — SENATE NOMINEE
ELECTION ACT

J. Les presented a bill intituled Senate Nominee Election Act.

J. Les: I move that the act be read for a first time now.

Motion approved.

J. Les: The purpose of this bill is to modernize the Canadian Senate in a way that reflects the values of British Columbians and best represents British Columbia in the Senate of Canada. It is clear that the new federal government is….

Mr. Speaker: Member, just a second. Because of the fact it's not on the order paper, you have to ask leave.

Leave not granted.

Bill M213 — Family Compensation Act
Amendment Act, 2011

R. Sultan presented a bill intituled Family Compensation Act Amendment Act, 2011.

R. Sultan: I move that the bill be read a first time now.

Motion approved.

R. Sultan: The Family Compensation Act Amendment Act would permit the court to award damages up to
[ Page 7828 ]
specified limits for grief and loss of guidance, care and companionship to spouses of deceased persons as well as parents and children. Curiously, if you suffer from the wrongful death of your spouse or child, the law permits courts to grant you damages for the financial loss you have incurred. What potentially is your compensation for the loss of your spouse, beyond the nickels and dimes? Nothing. It is not allowed.

This amendment is inspired by the unfortunate plight of my friend Dale, who lost her husband, Russ, apparently through a prescription error. What was her recourse for this tragedy? None, because her income from retired engineer Russ and her own pension was unaffected, and for Dale, financially, life went on as before. But for Dale after loss of her lifelong companion, life certainly did not go on as before.

This amendment is a carbon copy of the statute currently on the books in Alberta granting the potential for the court to grant awards, within limits, for those who have suffered the tragedy of wrongful death. The Family Compensation Act Amendment Act is consistent with the families-first agenda of this government.

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

Bill M213, Family Compensation Act Amendment Act, 2011, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[1010]

Bill M214 — Limitation Act
Amendment Act, 2011

R. Sultan presented a bill intituled Limitation Act Amendment Act, 2011.

R. Sultan: I move that the bill be read a first time now.

Motion approved.

R. Sultan: The Limitation Act Amendment Act would create an ultimate limitation period of ten years with respect to the occupations of licensed professional engineer or geoscientist, professional architect, licensed dentist or licensed accountant.

Today the civil liability of highly trained persons working in these professions extends 30 years beyond discovery of the alleged fault. What are some of the consequences? Dentists around town must find storage space for all those X-rays and plaster casts for 30 years, since recently a dentist hereabouts was sued for a worn crown 17 years old. Engineers routinely skip having liability insurance at all, for fear it will merely attract litigation, and besides, it's too expensive. The engineering equivalent of unsafe sex, I would say. Accountants fear the loss of their homes and even their RRSPs, as appears to be happening in a current very high-profile case back east.

Architects find litigants' reach extends beyond the grave, as experienced by my own assistant as she fought both lawsuits and her own cancer in years of effort to settle her architect husband's estate.

Government in its wisdom provides only six years of opportunity to find fault with doctors and its own hospital system — six years versus 30 years. This amendment will come closer to balancing that hugely lopsided statute.

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

Bill M214, Limitation Act Amendment Act, 2011, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: In this House I call, first of all, Motion 15, and then followed by that will be committee stage of the Yale treaty, Bill 11. In Section A we will continue the estimates of the Office of the Premier.

Government Motions on Notice

MOTION 15 — APPOINTMENT OF
CLERKS OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Hon. R. Coleman: It is my pleasure today to move Motion 15 standing in my name on the order paper. The motion reads as follows:

[Be it resolved that Mr. Craig James is hereby appointed Clerk of the Legislative Assembly; vice, Mr. E. George MacMinn, O.B.C., Q.C., as and from September 1, 2011, and that Mr. E. George MacMinn, O.B.C., Q.C., is hereby appointed as Clerk Consultant as and from September 1, 2011, for a term of twenty-four (24) months and that during that term shall, for all purposes, be deemed to be an Officer of the Legislative Assembly.

And further that Ms. Kate Ryan-Lloyd be appointed Deputy Clerk of the Legislative Assembly and Chief Committee Clerk as and from September 1, 2011.]

Legislative Clerks play a vital role in the democratic process. They're consummate professionals who lend their wisdom and knowledge to those of us elected to do the people's work. Without the guidance and support of such dedicated individuals, our job and indeed your job, Mr. Speaker, would be impossible.

The three Clerks named in this motion uphold and exemplify the very best traditions of their chosen career. Clerks across the Commonwealth, including here in Canada, are appointed by succession. They become known and respected in the jurisdiction where they serve and so move up the hierarchy within the particular Legislature.
[ Page 7829 ]

This is very much the case with today's appointments, which uphold this longstanding practice. These three Clerks have a cumulative experience of over 95 years, a recognized record in the Commonwealth.

[1015]

British Columbia is privileged indeed to have such distinguished practitioners watching over this assembly. I know all members of the House will be wholeheartedly in support of this significant motion, or they should be.

A. Dix: It's with more sadness than anger that I rise today to speak on this motion because of the utmost respect that I have for the Clerk of the House, Mr. MacMinn, whom I've worked with for more than 20 years, my respect for Ms. Ryan-Lloyd and my respect for Mr. James. But what we have here is an example of a government that is arrogant and doesn't respect the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. That's what we have here.

Less than a week ago I was contacted and a discussion was entered into as to whether Mr. James would be appointed as Clerk of the Legislature. What I said is what everybody working for a non-profit has to go through and most people working in government have to go through — that I thought that Mr. James would be a leading candidate for the job, but I thought there'd be an open competition.

I thought posting a job in secret and filling a job in secret wasn't appropriate and that the job of assessing the candidates and making a recommendation should go to the Legislative Assembly Management Committee, a perfectly reasonable approach to this.

Now, the Office of the Clerk is a non-partisan office of the Legislature. We have a tradition in our Legislature of independent officers of the House which are, of course, appointed by unanimous vote of a special committee that's adopted by the House. That's our tradition.

In recent times we have a government that has disrespected that tradition. We had an Auditor General for a year who was appointed by the government members on the committee. We've had a Chief Electoral Officer — again, in that case, Mr. James — appointed by the government side as an interim.

Those processes are simply disrespected in this House by a government which wants to appoint everything. Even in fields where they don't have the right to do so, they continue to do so. It's ten years in power, and it's the arrogance that comes with ten years in power that's being expressed here today in a fundamental way.

We are talking about a job which has been filled by someone who is recognized throughout the Commonwealth, indeed in legislative jurisdictions everywhere, as an expert. We are not allowing people in British Columbia to have a right to apply for that job, people in Canada to have a right to apply for the job or even to know that it happens. This is what the motion implies.

The fact of the matter is that the Clerk of the House is supposed to be non-partisan. It's supposed to be a non-partisan office. That reflects, surely, that there should be some agreement between the members of this House. Not just the government members and the opposition members but all of the members of the House should be involved in the decision to appoint a Clerk of the House in some fashion, because it's a non-partisan office.

It diminishes the Office of the Clerk to do what the government is doing today, to make it an appointment by a government majority decided by a government majority. That is what they are doing. It is simply wrong, and it has consequences.

The minister talks about a job that's appointed by succession. There is not a non-profit organization in British Columbia that would agree with that approach. Let's face it. This decision was made by one person, the Premier of British Columbia, who decided to bring this motion forward, put it on the order paper without informing the opposition and then to put it forward.

They are diminishing this Legislature. They are diminishing its independence. They're diminishing the Office of the Speaker. They're diminishing the Office of the Clerk. It is not acceptable. That is why the opposition will be voting against this motion, because it is disrespectful of the very legislative institutions that we are all sworn to uphold.

Now, what does it do in effect? It says that this Legislature is supporting some sort of divine right, the divine right of the Premier to make decisions about non-partisan offices. That's what's involved here.

[1020]

Government bringing this forward without consultation of the opposition is totally, totally in contravention of the spirit of previous decisions, including the decisions made the last time a Clerk was appointed in this House, when all sides in the House agreed with that decision.

What the opposition is proposing is a reasonable process so that these positions be posted, so that the excellent candidates….

Certainly, Mr. James is an excellent candidate — they're all certainly excellent candidates — and would be a leading candidate for the job. But others might want to apply for a job here in this beautiful city of Victoria that has a salary of $250,000 a year. Surely we would also get other applicants — and that this Legislature assess those applicants and makes the best choice for the people of British Columbia…. Every non-profit in B.C., most corporations in B.C. and every government agency in B.C. operates on that standard, and the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia should operate on that standard as well.

So it is with great sadness that we oppose this motion. We felt and I felt that what had been put forward by the opposition was reasonable. It was not listened to.
[ Page 7830 ]
We made it perfectly clear that we did not support this action, that this was a decision by the government to appoint — sadly, just on its side — its choice in this position, something that they have the majority to impose in this House, but they do not have the moral right to impose.

We made our position clear about process, and the government chose to completely ignore it. Not only that, they simply ignored it by tabling this motion in the Legislature. Can you believe it, hon. Speaker? What disrespect for the institutions of the Legislature. This is the arrogance that comes when you've had a majority of 77 to two to start with. You make all the decisions. This is the arrogance that a new Premier is taking to democratic institutions in this province, and I don't think people agree with it.

I think most people in B.C. would say that if you're going to fill this job, you should let people know the job is available, and you should give people the right to apply for it. Then we'll see what comes. Instead, we have a very different approach, a backroom approach, an approach that's not respectful of the non-partisan nature of the role of the Clerk and not respectful of the Legislature.

On behalf of the official opposition, my colleague the member for Juan de Fuca will be talking about some of the other precedents, some of the other institutions because these, of course, are always evolving institutions. We will be responding to the assertion by the Government House Leader that this is a question of succession. The Opposition House Leader will be responding to that.

I must say this is an unfortunate day, a day of disrespect by the government for this Legislature, a sad day for this Legislature. The opposition will be opposing this motion in spite of the high regard with which we hold all three of the Clerks named in the motion.

J. Horgan: I rise as well, following the Leader of the Opposition, out of sadness more than anything else. One of the proudest moments of my life was taking my place in this institution. I started working in politics in the House of Commons, and I saw Stanley Knowles, 44 years as a member of that institution, appointed by the House of Commons as an honorary Clerk. He sat at the table for the remaining years of his life, watching the activities of parliament that he had enjoyed and respected for almost half a century.

To come here today as a rather rough-hewn fellow from the west coast of Vancouver Island…. I do so with deference to the institution. I do so with deference to the Table Officers. I do so with deference to the Speaker and also to the Government House Leader. When I was appointed the official opposition House Leader, I felt that it was an opportunity for me to dig even more deeply into the traditions of this institution to find out where the Druids had buried the sacred runes that we were to talk about.

Members will know that the first Clerk of any parliament was appointed in 1363 because most parliamentarians were illiterate. The function of the Clerk was to read the titles of the bills and the contents of the bills so that all members could have an understanding of what they were doing. In fact, today at five o'clock the Clerk will stand in the corner and read the bills to all members in this place. It's a tradition that's been going on for a long, long, long, long time.

It's not that I want to disrespect tradition. I'm a historian; I like old stuff. I value and respect the things that have happened before us, but I am also a creature of the 21st century as all members in this place are, as all of our constituents are.

[1025]

I've got to tell you, and I've got to tell other members, that when I go back to my constituency and say that on the last day, without any notice beyond 24 hours, when we know we are going to be rising potentially before an election, potentially not coming back here until next February…. I have to go back and say I participated in handing a $250,000-a-year job for life to somebody without due process. I don't believe I can do that in good conscience, despite the respect I have for Mr. James, despite the enormous respect I have for Ms. Ryan-Lloyd.

I don't believe that in the 21st century, with an institution that has a Merit Commissioner for every other appointment in government beyond those made by the Premier, we can in good conscience accept without any discussion that the only person for the job is someone who has recently been appointed without consultation to be the Chief Electoral Officer of British Columbia.

The Government House Leader made reference to the tradition of succession, and that may well be the tradition here in British Columbia. It's been a long time since we've replaced the Clerk. In other jurisdictions in the Commonwealth, like South Australia, for example, positions are posted, notices of vacancies are published, and open competitions take place. Similarly, in Queensland, Victoria, the positions are advertised more widely than public service notices in major daily newspapers to include on-line job sites in the case of more senior vacancies, and they're distributed to other Australasian parliaments and parliaments around the world.

I would think, being a lifetime resident of southern Vancouver Island, that if we posted internationally for a quarter-million-dollar-a-year job in Victoria, we would get some pretty good applicants. That's not to say that Mr. James would not be a leading candidate for that position. But the notion that on the last day, with 24 hours' notice, we are going to pass the succession on to another individual without an open competition is anathema in the 21st century. My constituents are not likely going to be happy about it, and I would suggest that constituents of members on both sides of the House will feel the same way.
[ Page 7831 ]

I have a long inventory. The House of Commons recently…. Many, many more Clerks, of course, with more activities going on there than we have in this Legislature. They have a process of annually holding competitions to bring new Clerks into the system where they can move around and be promoted as required, but ultimately, competitive processes are the order of the day.

The opposition leader spoke about non-profits within government. Ministers of the Crown will know this. Deputy ministers can't spend $25,000 without an open process. Why in the world would we as legislators in the 21st century defer to succession on such an important position that must be a non-partisan position? The Clerk of the Legislature must have the confidence of every single member. I'm not suggesting that Mr. James does not have that, but surely to goodness we should have had more of a discussion about this transition than we've had to this point in time.

The official opposition leader made it quite clear that there was an option. We have a legislative management committee of this place, which I am now a member of. We've had a couple of meetings. We can deal with important matters such as finding a process to lead to a succession from the current Clerk to the next Clerk. I do not believe we had to do it the way it's been done.

I do not believe this does anything to elevate this institution. In fact, we will be mocked and ridiculed by those in my constituency for the way this has been handled, not because of the individuals, not because of the position, but because in everyone else's daily lives the notion of being given a job because you're there is just not on. It doesn't happen at the 7-Eleven. It doesn't happen in the mill. It doesn't happen in the public service of British Columbia.

Open process, hon. Speaker. The list goes on and on. It's not just Australia, it's not just Nova Scotia, it's not just Newfoundland, it's not just New Zealand, it's not just Manitoba, and it's not just the Quebec National Assembly. There are dozens of examples listed in the journal of the Society of Clerks-at-the-Table in British Commonwealth Parliaments, volume 76.

This happens all the time. In the 21st century I think it's appropriate that we change our institutions so that they reflect the values of the people we represent. What we're doing today is wrong, and the official opposition is going to oppose it — sadly, not with anger.

[1030-1035]

Motion approved on the following division:

Hon. R. Coleman: I call committee stage on Bill 11 in this House, and we will now start the estimates of the office of the Premier in Committee A.

Committee of the Whole House

BIll 11 — Yale First Nation
Final agreement act

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 11; D. Black in the chair.

The committee met at 10:39 a.m.

On section 1 (continued).

J. Brar: I seek leave to make an introduction.

The Chair: Please proceed.

Introductions by Members

J. Brar: Visiting us today is the future of this beautiful province of British Columbia. They are 45 students from
[ Page 7832 ]
Green Timbers Elementary School in Surrey. They are accompanied by their teachers Ms. Wendy Kaland, Mrs. Romano, Mrs. Dhaliwal and a group of their parents. So I would ask the members from both sides of the House to please make them feel welcome.

Debate Continued

S. Fraser: I'm glad to take my spot back in the debate of this second reading of the Yale treaty. That's Bill 11.

[1040]

Where we left off yesterday, I had asked the question of the minister and her staff, on a definition that was absent in the "Definitions" section, and I asked for an explanation. That's the Frozen Lakes land. I think that's where we were at yesterday. I didn't get the answer, because we rose at the end of our time limit allotted for yesterday. I don't know if I need to redo the question, or if we can just….

So Frozen Lakes land is not in the definitions, yet it is a…. It is in the definitions, but unlike the Five Mile fishery, the Frozen Lakes land has no mention of Stó:lô, and Stó:lô, of course, have claimed significant historic precedent of use of that land, family use of that land.

I'd like some explanation for how that's to be reconciled in what should be a treaty process that is about reconciliation.

Hon. M. Polak: Once again, before I begin, I'll just introduce the staff who are here with me today. We have to my left, Mark Lofthouse, our chief negotiator; to my right, my deputy minister, Steve Munro; and we have Jeff Loenen from the Ministry of Attorney General, our legal counsel.

To the member's question, Stó:lô are not specifically mentioned because this is a provision that is inclusive of everyone, be it the public or Stó:lô.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister.

I do want to just as we begin this session today…. We're dealing with committee stage of Bill 11, and I think coming to a close on section 1. It is important to reflect that this is an essential part, this committee stage, where we can go through the 70 sections of Bill 11, the Yale treaty.

It is the first opportunity we will have in this House, whether it's government members or opposition members or independent members, to go through the treaty and what it means. On behalf of all interested parties, it allows us that opportunity to hopefully, in theory, bring comfort to and answers to questions that have been maybe left hanging for other First Nations, for British Columbians and for members on both sides of the House.

So I just wanted to reflect that this is an important part of that process, especially since there has been no empowering of the standing committee to involve members of the House other than maybe government members, although I don't believe government members have had much involvement or any involvement in this too.

This is a good process to be in, and I know people are watching this who are hoping for answers to questions, certainly, that have been given to members of this House to ask in this process, in the committee stage. I don't need to tell the minister or her staff about that, but I just wanted to reflect on that for anyone watching.

With that, I will sit down on section 1. I don't have any more questions. I could have many more questions, but I'm mindful of our very, very limited time here. I will sit down on section 1.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

[1045]

S. Fraser: Section 2 is: "The Yale First Nation Final Agreement is a treaty and a land claims agreement within the meaning of sections 25 and 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982." So we're getting into section 35 constitutional issues here.

I guess the question I have…. There is an interpretation here that sections of this act are challengeable constitutionally — probably under section 35, I would submit.

Certainly, Stó:lô, I think, believe that their rights are being infringed on, if not extinguished in certain cases of access. I'm not saying that's true or not true, but I'm just asking the minister: how does she reconcile section 2 as far as it is about protecting aboriginal rights? While it may do so for the Yale First Nation, it may also be taking away rights from the Stó:lô.

Hon. M. Polak: This treaty is about Yale's section 35 rights. It does not affect the section 35 rights of any other First Nation, including Stó:lô. That is, in fact, one of the reasons that there is a non-derogation clause in the treaty.

I would also direct the member to sections 26.8 and 27.1, which deal with the manner in which minor amendments and major amendments can be made, should there be any implication of another First Nation's section 35 rights.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. I'm familiar. She educated me on those sections yesterday a bit, so thank you for that.

I have a letter from Stó:lô Tribal Council, and I'll do a quote here. This is around what they see as…. If the Yale agreement becomes law, their ability to continue exercising age-old fishing rights at the Five Mile fishery will be infringed.
[ Page 7833 ]

Here's a quote: "We have made every effort to resolve the issue with B.C. and Canada."

I'll divert from the quote for a moment. It has been made clear to me by Stó:lô…. Whether it's the nation council or tribal council, both have indicated that their concerns here are around their dealings with government and not with the Yale people. This is directed, I believe, in that regard.

"We have provided them" — this is government, B.C. and Canada — "with all the evidence required to prove that the Five Mile fishery is a collective Stó:lô fishery that does not belong to Yale or any single community, and we have sought negotiations towards a solution that would protect our rights, while allowing Yale to conclude its treaty. However, to date, both governments have failed to engage us."

[1050]

I guess with that perspective, would not the minister agree that along with that would go a perspective that the province certainly hasn't played a role in protecting the section 35 rights of the Stó:lô people in this regard?

Hon. M. Polak: To begin with, let's remember that with respect to reserve land where there is no treaty, on the status of the land currently — because, of course, the treaty has not been fully put in place — the Yale have complete control over access to that land. There are no access provisions that would permit the Stó:lô to access the river through those lands currently, and in fact the areas of access that are of controversy are those lands, primarily, that were reserve lands, or are reserve lands, prior to the treaty.

The addition of the access provision that is included in the treaty arguably ensures that Stó:lô have access, whereas currently they do not have guaranteed access through those lands. The Five Mile fishery is not impacted in any way by this treaty. The treaty does not give ownership of the Five Mile fishery to the Yale. In fact, the treaty only deals with land. It does not deal with anything on the river.

Access to the river, of course, is not only assured through the access provisions in the treaty, but also there is additional access outside of the treaty settlement lands to the areas that would be entered into in order to fish.

With respect to the Stó:lô's contention that we have not continued to work with them and attempt to reach an agreement, not only do we commit to continuing to work with them, but I can advise the member that we met beginning on July 11 of 2008 and continuing very, very regularly — I won't read the entire list of meetings, but I would be happy to provide them to the member with respect to meetings, correspondence, etc. — all the way through those years and, of course, most recently this past week, when I met personally with the Stó:lô with my deputy.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that, and I would actually appreciate that list. I don't need it now but at the end of the session, if you could make that available.

I guess we're getting two sides of this. The Stó:lô Tribal Council says their concern is that if the agreement as it's written is brought into force in its current form, it will alienate and infringe Stó:lô fishing rights to a traditional fishery known as the Five Mile fishery. The discussions do not seem to have borne fruit so far in addressing those concerns, which is unfortunate at this point.

[1055]

Also, I have heard claims that there were identified and documented 86 fishing sites in the canyon in total and that four — which, I think, no one argues are Yale's — that remain on Crown land were not identified in the land selection. Is that correct? Do the four sites, identified Yale sites, remain on Crown land? They were not part of the settlement?

Hon. M. Polak: I think I understood the member's question. If not, we'll try this again. Indeed, all the reserve lands are what we transfer first into treaty settlement lands. So all the reserve lands of Yale have become treaty settlement lands, with the addition of Crown land.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that clarification. I know that one of the concerns the Stó:lô put forward to me was that of the 86 documented sites that were identified, they see that 41 of those sites are directly affected, potentially, by the treaty negatively for them.

Again, we've gone back and forth on this. There are issues around permitting that would certainly, if they're established — certainly as far as the Stó:lô are concerned — be seen as an infringement of Stó:lô rights if they are required after…. The minister has mentioned that there's family history on a lot of these sites. There are drying racks. There are access issues. They're real and historic for Stó:lô — and for Yale. I don't mean this with any disrespect to Yale.

My questions are directed at the Crown here and the province of British Columbia. Those access issues, if they are entrenched in treaty through a permission to be obtained and permitting process that doesn't specifically define Stó:lô's rights…. Doesn't the minister see that that would be perceived at least, rightly or wrongly, as a stripping of access rights, of a restricting of those rights?

The canyon and the fisheries are, I think, the crux of the main part of the issue — the conflict, if you will, on the territories.

Hon. M. Polak: First, just to reiterate that the treaty has no impact whatsoever on the Five Mile fishery or, in fact, on anyone's rights to fish. It deals only with the land.

Again, the reserve land, as it functions right now, gives the Chief absolutely full rights to control access to those lands. In fact, there are trespass laws in place that relate
[ Page 7834 ]
to reserve lands that give the Chief unilateral rights to block Stó:lô in terms of their access to that fishery.

[1100]

Again, it is certainly the access provisions within the treaty that improve the ability for Stó:lô to be able to access areas such as the Five Mile fishery. Without those access provisions in the treaty, they do not in fact have unfettered access. The Chief of the Yale, in managing his reserves, has unilateral rights to block that access.

In addition to that, as we've canvassed here, the Yale treaty, and any treaty…. This treaty cannot impact on Stó:lô's rights because of the non-derogation clause. We certainly hope that as we continue to speak with Stó:lô and continue to dialogue with them, we will be able to put in place an agreement that satisfies their desire to maintain their traditional fishing and traditional activities on the land in concert with the Yale treaty implementation.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. It is our hope, too, that these issues will be remedied. Certainly I recognize the difficulty, and I recognize the good work that the treaty negotiators do. So I appreciate that. I know that they span politics also. They're doing the job as laid out through the Treaty Commission. Again, I thank them for that.

I don't believe there are any Stó:lô Tribal Council members in the treaty process. But Stó:lô Nation council bands — I think seven; is it seven or nine? — are actually in the treaty process. Am I correct? Perhaps you could clarify: is it seven or nine?

The Chair: The member for Surrey-Fleetwood seeks leave.

Introductions by Members

J. Brar: I seek leave again to make an introduction. Earlier I introduced a group of students from Green Timbers Elementary School in Surrey. Now we have the second group of grade 5 students from the same beautiful school. They are accompanied by their teachers, which include Miss Wendy Kaland, Mrs. Romano and Mrs. Dhaliwal, and by their parents. I would ask both sides to please make them feel welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. M. Polak: The member is correct that none of the Stó:lô who are part of the tribal council are involved in active treaty negotiations. There are seven within the treaty association who are part of active treaty negotiations.

S. Fraser: Thanks for that clarification. I don't know why I have a hard time grasping whether it was seven or nine. So of the 29 Stó:lô bands, between the Stó:lô Nation council and the Stó:lô Tribal Council, seven in the nation council are in the treaty process. So they will also be seeking, under section 35, constitutional rights. I'm hoping they will be successful too.

I also recognize that those not in the treaty process certainly have no less rights. I recognize that members of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs have a different take and do not agree with the treaty process, and I respect that also. The minister is nodding here. We must be mindful that the treaty itself is not a panacea. As we see this unfold with seven Stó:lô actually in the treaty process…. I'm not sure what level they are — not level 5, certainly; not stage 5. If the minister could just clarify that.

[1105]

Where I'm going, just so she knows…. I'm just trying to clarify: as claims for historic territorial use come forward from more of the Stó:lô nations in the treaty process, I'm wondering if the decisions made here around access and land and territory have been reflected in the larger picture as the further treaty process unfolds.

Hon. M. Polak: I hope this helps to clarify things for the member.

All seven of those Stó:lô bands are at stage 4, negotiating an agreement-in-principle. The area referred to as the Yale First Nations area is the larger piece of land that surrounds the treaty settlement lands. Otherwise you would think of that as the statement-of-intent lands. It corresponds fairly well.

[L.Reid in the chair.]

The Yale have non-exclusive rights to hunting and fishing and other activities on those lands. There's nothing that prevents us from locating future treaty settlement lands for Stó:lô within that area.

S. Fraser: I recognize, and I don't want to take too long on this…. But it is helpful, as we're dealing with the constitutional issues here. These overlaps, if they're oversubscribed, could cause future constitutional problems. So they certainly need to be averted.

I guess just another question around this. Those seven Stó:lô nations that are in stage 4 now — my understanding is that they have significant concerns. It's all 29 Stó:lô that are united in their concerns around access, historic use and such — you know, in their opinion, at least. Am I correct that that includes the seven bands within the treaty process at stage 4 right now?

Hon. M. Polak: Yes, that's correct.

S. Fraser: In the schedule, section 2.12.1 says: "Nothing in this Agreement…recognizes or provides any
[ Page 7835 ]
rights under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 for any aboriginal people other than Yale First Nation." Now, the minister, I think, explained this well yesterday. This is the Yale treaty. So that's certainly the rationale for only citing the Yale First Nation in the treaty and no other nation. I accept that.

But the next section: "If a superior court of a province, the Federal Court of Canada or the Supreme Court of Canada finally determines that any aboriginal people, other than Yale First Nation, has a right under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 that is adversely affected by a provision of this Agreement" — which arguably is the situation that the Stó:lô are claiming….

[1110]

Then, "a. that provision will operate and have effect to the extent it does not adversely affect that right; and b. if the provision cannot operate and have effect in a way that it does not adversely affect that right, the Parties will make best efforts to amend this Agreement to remedy or replace that provision."

Now, I see there's legal wording here, so I'm glad there's a legal representative. I have a hard time with how these are worded. You know, as a layperson looking at this, am I correct in saying that the significant issues that are outstanding as far as the Stó:lô are concerned, based on section 2.12.2…?

If they are correct in part or in total, and it leads to any kind of a court challenge or constitutional challenge, would that take this right back to an amendment stage? The minister clarified yesterday that amendment would have to go right back to all three parties in the Yale agreement. Am I correct in that interpretation?

Hon. M. Polak: Certainly, we expect that we will be successful in negotiating a satisfactory agreement with the Stó:lô and with the Yale, with respect to access and with respect to ensuring that their rights are respected. The section that the member has referred to is the non-derogation clause that is common to all treaties. Of course, we believe that affords us the opportunity to deal with overlap issues in a way that doesn't take us to litigation. Nevertheless, that provision is there.

Should there be a case where we end up having to go to an amendment, it would go back to all parties. That again is described in section 27 in the amendment chapter.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that clarification.

I guess four parties, then, would be involved in that. If there was potential litigation, a court challenge — from, say, for instance, the Stó:lô — and they were successful in that court challenge, then somehow that would have to be negotiated, or renegotiated, between the government of Canada, the government of British Columbia and, certainly, the Yale First Nation. Then the Stó:lô would be part of that negotiation and/or discussion.

Whether it's at the same table or not, I'm not sure. Just for clarification, is that how that would unfold?

[1115]

Hon. M. Polak: Of course, we always have an obligation to consult with Stó:lô, as we have an obligation to consult with any First Nations who would be affected by a treaty. Nevertheless, were the Yale treaty to be amended in the manner in which the member has outlined, it would not involve the Stó:lô. The Stó:lô are not one of the three parties to the agreement, nor would they be with an amendment.

The Stó:lô would, again, be consulted, as they are whenever another treaty is made. But the discussion and negotiation that would accomplish amending the treaty would be a further negotiation between the three parties to the Yale treaty — Canada, British Columbia and the Yale.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for this, and thanks for allowing me some.… It is complicated — these issues, how they play, and the potential for things happening that maybe were unforeseen by me, but I'm sure were foreseen by your negotiators and your staff.

I appreciate very much the clarifications here. I very much appreciate the 17 years of work that the Yale took trying to sift through this stuff. I find it very difficult, and I know that the negotiators have been a big help in that regard, and I applaud them for that. I also applaud the Yale First Nation.

Being mindful of that, and that the time that we have allocated is limited, I will put in another bid. It would really be helpful, self-serving though it might be, but I am the critic for the opposition…. It sure would be helpful if the minister would consider discussing with the Premier utilizing the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, because it would make this process a lot easier, I think.

It would certainly help clarify, and help remedy things and conflicts before they get to this stage, because certainly, if we ever did get to the point where this becomes a constitutional challenge and it requires amendments, the complexity of changing these things and getting agreements becomes even more difficult, not less.

I think it's better to deal with these things early on, and I suggest that the tool of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs is one that could be useful to all members of this House and to the people of British Columbia and, certainly in this case, both the Yale First Nation and the Stó:lô First Nation.

On section 2 now, I will not go any further, although I have a lot more. I will sit down.

B. Simpson: Section 2 of the treaty is kind of the omnibus statement that is inclusive of the final agreement. Because of truncated debate, and because the
[ Page 7836 ]
minister has already taken some latitude to go to other clauses, I do want to approach this in that fashion.

Again, I want to start my comments off with respect for the Yale and respect for the work of the B.C. Treaty Commission. This is not about the Yale exercising their right to self-declare and to arrive at a treaty with the provincial government. It's a process issue, and it's about whether or not the redress of the Yales' concerns causes an injustice for another First Nation, which the government also has an obligation to address concerns with as well.

As the opposition member pointed out, some of the Stó:lô are involved in the treaty process, and there are legitimate questions as to what getting an early treaty does to the opportunity for a later treaty over the same territory. The questions, I believe, are legitimate, and again, just an iteration, because the opposition critic had pointed to the committee….

I did again get confirmation from Chief Joseph Hall that his preference would be along the lines of the hoist, and I'll get into an argument that he's posed to me for that.

[1120]

However, I want to go back a little bit to last night's debate, because that's the luxury of having an overnight. You get an opportunity to think about ministers' responses and then reflect on them and get some help to understand them, because this is a complex issue.

I asked a question yesterday about…. The reason for the question is that it's where all of this really starts, and that's the statement of intent, the first stage of treaty. In that statement of intent, the way the B.C. Treaty Commission process is supposed to work, is also supposed to be a letter or a declaration of overlapping claims. My question to the minister….

The minister did come back later and say it's 100 percent overlap. Therefore, there wasn't either an exemption agreement or an agreement of resource-sharing or whatever to drive the rest of the treaty process. But the minister answered that it's not the provincial government's responsibility to interfere with the B.C. Treaty Commission process.

I want to ask…. The B.C. Treaty Commission is not the negotiator, as I understand it. The negotiators at the table are Canada, British Columbia and, in this case, the Yale First Nation. So what is the way, then…?

To say that the B.C. Treaty Commission is the one that gets those documents and, therefore, it would be interfering with the process to go and look at those documents, suggests to me a misunderstanding of how the process works, because all the Treaty Commission does is convene the table and make sure the process is followed through, as I understand it. The documents are actually given to the provincial government and the Canadian government as part of the process.

I wonder if the minister could just address that. Do documents tabled with the B.C. Treaty Commission, tabled at the treaty table, actually come to the province of British Columbia and their negotiators when they are tabled with the B.C. Treaty Commission?

Hon. M. Polak: First to the critic, who was finishing off his comments, just to say that I appreciate his comments with respect to the standing committee, and I will certainly convey to the Premier the member's interest in the operation of the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs.

Just to make one comment with respect to the member's lead comments. It's important to note, as we've canvassed earlier, that nothing prevents the Stó:lô from having treaty settlement lands taken within the Yale First Nation area, that broader statement of intent area. It's important to note that.

In terms of the operation of the B.C. Treaty Commission, it is the B.C. Treaty Commission who receives the statement of intent. They are the ones who review that. They are the ones who make the decision that the First Nation is ready to negotiate as an independent First Nation. We do not review that decision. We do not comment in the positive or negative about that decision. They are independent, and it is their decision to make.

[1125]

When we then enter into negotiations, we certainly consult with all the nations surrounding the treaty area under discussion. That includes, of course, discussion of overlap issues. Typically, we would look to each of the First Nations involved in that consultation to provide us with the areas of their asserted territories. We then proceed to negotiate and consult, including issues of overlap.

But the initial decision as to whether or not a First Nation is ready to negotiate, and their statement of intent and the review and decision on that, is the B.C. Treaty Commission's alone. We don't review that decision, nor do we second-guess it.

B. Simpson: I didn't actually ask if the government was second-guessing the commission. I understand the nature of the commission.

My question was about the documents. Are the documents provided to the parties? Did the province of British Columbia receive both the letter of intent and any associated documentation with respect to overlapping claims?

Hon. M. Polak: Chances are that the agreements we then end up reviewing, through negotiations with the various First Nations…. Chances are those documents have also been part of what's gone to the B.C. Treaty Commission.

Nevertheless, there's no formal process whereby, when the Treaty Commission makes its decision, they
[ Page 7837 ]
then turn over, say, the case that was made to them to the negotiators. The nature of the documents being what it is, chances are that in the course of the many years of negotiations, once the statement of intent is approved by the Treaty Commission, chances are that the same documents are being reviewed by our negotiators.

B. Simpson: I would hope, given that it's a negotiation, that the negotiators would be looking at the documents that are the material of the negotiation. Otherwise, that seems like a pretty bizarre negotiation process. Hopefully, the chances are very real and did actually happen.

So let me move on, on this. Again, the minister responded yesterday in this case that the reason for not having an exclusionary agreement or an agreement of shared area is because of the 100 percent overlap. So we have a claim to title, as I understand it, by Stó:lô, and those coming into treaty and those outside the treaty process, and Yale, which claim that they have title to the same area.

In the case of that 100 percent overlap, it begs the question, then: does the first First Nation to get into the treaty process get priority to then, in the case of the Stó:lô — and the opposition critic has raised it — extinguish the rights of other First Nations? Effectively, is the treaty process, then, a first-past-the-post system?

[1130]

Hon. M. Polak: With respect to the first point, we were closing off discussing about B.C. Treaty Commission — and just to give the member some assurance. In the course of negotiations, in fact, it's likely that we have reviewed far more extensive documentation than the B.C. Treaty Commission would have reviewed in their initial decision. So certainly, there's extensive review of all documentation that we have access to.

In terms of the treaty settlement lands and this idea that the first First Nation to achieve a treaty would somehow be in a better position than subsequent treaty-making First Nations, the treaty settlement lands are mainly based on where you would find existing reserves. So we look at core traditional territory of the Yale, and we look at that in relation to the surrounding First Nations and what their core territory might be.

For example, the core territory of Yale and, indeed, the treaty settlement lands that are a part of this agreement are around the town of Yale. With respect to Stó:lô, while there is asserted traditional territory that overlaps entirely the Yale area, their core territory is right around the Chilliwack area. We would not go into the Chilliwack area to seek treaty settlement lands for another First Nation.

Nevertheless, it's important to remember that the Yale treaty does contemplate a future treaty. We, of course, have the non-derogation clause that we have discussed. But if you take a look at section 2.12.3, that section contemplates future treaties that could impact on the Yale treaty and offers a resolution to that.

In short, the land selection that we make in terms of treaty settlement lands is designed to avoid impacts on the core territories of the surrounding First Nation.

Again, to reiterate: there is nothing that prevents Stó:lô from eventually having treaty settlement lands that are within the Yale First Nation area.

B. Simpson: The minister's answer gets to the heart of the issue for the Stó:lô. She must know that. Her staff must know that. The Stó:lô were moved by the settlement government out of the area that the Yale remained in, and they were moved to the Chilliwack area.

[1135]

So to suggest that just because of place, actually undermines the whole Treaty Commission process, which does not require a proof of claim and doesn't prefer residence over an argument or a contention of the time immemorial rights.

Let me put into the record the evidence that's been presented to this government. The minister contended yesterday, as part of her argument, that the Yale band possessed exclusive rights over reserve lands in the canyon. I've been provided contrary evidence, evidence that would come out in a committee, evidence that would come out — if there was more time on this final agreement — that the canyon reserves upriver of the IR 1, Indian Reserve 1, were actually always understood as shared collective lands.

In fact, Commissioner Gilbert M. Sproat on August 5, 1879, in a statement about Yale Indians proper, expresses explicitly that it is Yale and other First Nations — of course, the term at the time was Indians — that have rights to all of it, including the five mile canyon.

In the 1880s the Hudson's Bay Company still tracked hundreds of Stó:lô villages still occupied all up and down the Fraser, and again language was used about time immemorial residents in those areas. The minister talked about five mile canyon yesterday. The Stó:lô maintain and claim real property in five mile canyon to this day.

So the argument that because of where the Yale are they somehow get pre-eminence in a first-past-the-post system, like the B.C. Treaty Commission process is devolving to, does undermine the Stó:lô and adds insult to injury because of them being moved.

In 1938, and I hope I'm pronouncing this correct, a Eayem memorial was erected to the collective Stó:lô rights in the canyon that was bulldozed in 2008 by the Yale. So to claim, again, that because the Yale live there that gives them pre-eminent rights over First Nations that claim time immemorial rights to that area is the problem with the treaty process.

Again, I'm not blaming the Yale or the B.C. Treaty Commission. They are simply charged by this government. The problem is that the B.C. Treaty Commission hasn't been enabled — through staffing levels, through funding and through mandate — to address overlapping
[ Page 7838 ]
claims in advance of the treaty table. All they're required to do is get a declaration of overlapping claims, not equipped or mandated to try and address those as other jurisdictions do.

My question to the minister is this, then. She keeps coming back to…. The primary argument that the minister makes to the extinguishment of Stó:lô rights or the contention by Stó:lô that their rights have been extinguished is that while the Yale get treaty rights, Stó:lô still have constitutional rights. While the Yale get rights of gatekeeping and permitting, Stó:lô still have constitutional rights that some kind of best effort or some kind of reasonable access test will be applied to.

So what is the difference between a treaty right and a constitutional right, then?

[1140]

The Chair: Hon. Members, the member for Nelson-Creston seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

M. Mungall: It's my great pleasure to introduce to the House Donna and Roman Matieschyn. On July 23 they will officially become my father- and mother-in-law, and they're joining me today for lunch. May the House please make them welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. M. Polak: First to clarify. My reference from our discussions yesterday was to the rights that the Yale have under the Indian Act. Under the Indian Act, they have exclusive rights to reserve land. They can unilaterally bar access to the reserve land. People who would be contravening that would be in trespass.

It is not a first-past-the-post system. The B.C. Treaty Commission is not a first-past-the-post system, nor are our treaty negotiations reflective of that position either.

The clauses that protect the rights of other First Nations in the area are the derogation clause…. Those are standard, and they contemplate further in the treaty the potential for future treaties that may impact on the Yale treaty.

So it is not a first-past-the-post system. There is no advantage to the First Nation who gets there first.

Based on the reserve lands that the Yale have — or, indeed, any First Nation with whom we were dealing — we would not have approved treaty settlement lands for Stó:lô in the Yale core territory. That would not have happened.

Treaty rights are constitutionally protected, and it is our view that the defined treaty rights of the Yale in this treaty are not incompatible with Stó:lô's yet-to-be-defined treaty rights, which of course are in negotiation.

With regard to the history, the member speaks of it as though it is some kind of cut-and-dried affair. In fact, the earliest evidence that we have for habitation there is in the early 1900s with respect to Stó:lô being present. The evidence does not show anything beyond what could have been allowed through an authorization or a protocol with the Yale. There's no way of knowing that.

Indeed, the Canadian government has recognized the Yale as an independent First Nations band for the last 110 years. The core territory for the Stó:lô is not in the Yale treaty settlement lands. That does not mean that Stó:lô were never present there. In fact, we recognize the transient nature of many of the activities that take place on the land base going back to our prehistory.

Nonetheless, we do not have evidence that shows, before the early 1900s, that there was a presence of Stó:lô, other than that which could be easily explained through an authorization of a protocol with Yale.

B. Simpson: I would never suggest that this is cut and dry. There's a lot of money expended on it and a lot of brain power put to it. It definitely is not cut and dry.

First Nations all over this province, as aboriginal peoples did wherever, didn't actually have lines on maps. They didn't have maps. They had ways of moving around. They had access to hunting and fishing rights. If they crossed paths, sometimes it would be conflict; sometimes it would be a meal and a nod and a shaking of hands.

[1145]

So it is very difficult, once the Canadian government…. It's why the majority of First Nations in the province of British Columbia are not in the treaty process. It does force them to start doing the very things that the government wants them to do, which is to constrain and define and limit the rights that they believe they had.

I sat with one chief, who said to me that he just simply doesn't recognize Crown title, and maybe Crown ought to be the one that puts forward the case that they have title. So I get that it's not cut and dry. That's not the issue.

The minister indicates that Yale First Nation has absolute rights on their Indian reserve land. The Stó:lô can state that that's simply not the case — that Yale, on IR 1, do.

Let's take a look, then, at the Kuthlalth, which is defined in section 1 and is assigned in this treaty to Yale. Now, the documentation I've been given is that in a royal commission in 1913, Chief James of the Yale First Nation attempted to make IR 3 Yale. That was rebuffed, and it was given to — and I'm not even going to try to pronounce the name of the bands — a band of the Tait tribe. That was reaffirmed in 2009, in a decision by Canada that IR 3 was not a Yale land; it belonged to another tribe.

Stó:lô have indicated that that's an example of where the Yale treaty assigns rights over an Indian reserve land that previous decisions did not assign to Yale. So I
[ Page 7839 ]
wonder if the minister could clarify her understanding of what happened in that particular case.

Hon. M. Polak: I want to correct the member. Kuthlalth, or IR 3, has been assigned to the Shxw'ow'hamel by the federal government, and it is not part of the treaty.

B. Simpson: So that's a misunderstanding I guess I have. However, it is defined in here. It is understood by Stó:lô that they now have restricted access as a result of the treaty. Again, it's one of those things that when you're trying to examine a 495-page treaty that's given to you in the eleventh hour and understand what's in it and in a truncated debate, misunderstandings may result.

I'm sure I'm going to get e-mails from folks who know a lot better than I do, who are watching this, that may end up contesting the minister's understanding of what went on.

We're going to wind up here, so let me cut to the chase on another issue that was raised last night. The minister said a couple of times that the Stó:lô had not provided evidence or had not engaged. There were requests, and those requests had not come forward.

In a specific instance about fishing villages, there was a statement made that evidence had not been provided. I'm being told that boxes of documents were provided and that one of the members of her staff team was the recipient of those boxes. So if the minister could indicate the veracity of that.

Secondly, last night, when I indicated that the final agreement is new to the public — the final agreement is something that we're dealing with here, but it is new to the public — the minister indicated that the Stó:lô had access to it 18 months ago. My understanding is they had access to…. Was it a draft, or was it the AIP? If it's the AIP, it's still supposed to be a work-in-progress, not the final agreement.

[1150]

My understanding is Stó:lô saw the final agreement at the same time that we did in this House and that the public did. Subsequent to the AIP being revealed to them 18 months ago, Stó:lô engaged the government, as I understand it, in serious claims against the treaty.

So again, if I could get a correction to the record with respect to the boxes of information provided to Canada in their request for the fishing villages and whether or not they saw the AIP or the final agreement 18 months ago and what has been the nature of the dialogue with Stó:lô since they saw whatever that document was 18 months ago.

Hon. M. Polak: I'll attempt to make this very brief. Firstly, with respect to Kuthlalth, to clarify for the member. If you refer, then, to section 12.1.2, the reference to Kuthlalth is simply affirming existing rights that the Yale have under the Indian Act. There is no change. This is simply what already exists.

With respect to the information provided that the negotiators have asked for from Stó:lô, they continue to provide information of a general nature and have been unable to provide specific site locations. We continue to seek better information from them and more specific information. We will continue to do that.

With respect to their awareness of and their access to the agreement-in-principle information, the draft treaty final agreement, we have shared drafts with them of the final agreement all the way through. The agreement-in-principle, of course, is what the final agreement is built on. With respect to that, the agreement-in-principle was on our website when it was signed March 9, 2006, and the final agreement went up on our website in February of 2010. But they have received drafts throughout.

B. Simpson: I know the minister has to close off debate and the other Clerk is here. I did need to make a correction, though. I guess in my passion for the question, I stated that the Stó:lô had bulldozed the memorial when, in fact, it was the Yale. So that's an error on my part, and I would ask Hansard to reflect that.

Hon. M. Polak: Noting the hour, I move the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:55 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, 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 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); D. Horne in the chair.
[ Page 7840 ]

The committee met at 10:26 a.m.

On Vote 10: Office of the Premier, $9,455,000 (continued).

Hon. C. Clark: Let me start today, first of all, by congratulating all British Columbians, all of Canada. We're all behind Canada's team, the Canucks, who won the game last night, which was great. It was a fantastic game, with Raffi Torres making us all proud in the last 17 seconds or something of the game — fantastic.

And we send our condolences to Boston for having lost the game, but also, much more seriously, Governor Patrick has declared a state of emergency in the state because of tornadoes that have so far killed four people. Tornado activity in the state…. It has been a very, very, very difficult time for the people of Boston.

On behalf of the government and the people of British Columbia, I'd like to extend our condolences for their losses and offer our support in any way that we can to try and make sure that, you know, as they get through this kind of a crisis, which is an awful, terrible impact for the families and the communities there and obviously for the entire state, that we're there with them to support them should they need us, should they ask.

I spoke to Governor Patrick a day or two ago. We talked hockey. We didn't talk about the circumstances in the state now, but if I do get a chance to talk to him again, I'll certainly be making the point that I'm making to the House today. We stand with them. We offer our condolences, and we will be there should they ask and should they need us.

A. Dix: It's been, as the Premier will know, a very difficult couple of weeks in the United States, not just in Massachusetts, with respect to these weather-related incidents. It reminds us, I think, all of us on all sides of the House, of the need to be prepared, the need to support each other and the importance of having those institutions in place.

Over time, as the Premier will know, we've developed a public health care system that responds — and this isn't a partisan issue — under both governments, NDP and Liberal. It responded, for example, to the SARS issue here in British Columbia very quickly. I think that when you compare that to places where public infrastructure is allowed to decline, you see it in these moments.

So it's important, and it's an important reminder to all of us who have responsible positions in public office to both be prepared and then, when incidents inevitably happen, as they can — there's nothing we can do about the kind of weather-related incidents you noted — that we support each other, whether we live in the same province, the same country, the same continent or the same world.

I wanted to ask the Premier about the status of the Evergreen line. This is a major federal-provincial discussion and municipal discussion. The Premier will know, as she formally represented Port Moody, that this has been a longstanding issue and an important issue in that community and into the Tri-Cities and, of course, for the whole Lower Mainland.

The government representative said that her predecessor said that "The solution for a $4 million gap in funding to complete the project will be found, and it will be found by the end of the year." Now, that promise has been made several times in several years, but that particular quote comes from 2010.

[The bells were rung.]

So I'm wondering where the government is at on that, and the Premier will respond after we do this next division.

The Chair: Hearing the bells, we'll take a short recess for the vote in the main chamber.

The committee recessed from 10:30 a.m. to 10:55 a.m.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Hon. C. Clark: In response to the member's question. Before we cast that vote on division, he was asking about the Evergreen line.

Certainly, I used to represent Port Moody. I used to live in Port Moody. Before that I represented Port Moody–Burnaby Mountain. I can say that having driven that road so many times and commuted back and forth out of Port Moody and lived through the traffic and gone the other way to Port Coquitlam and lived through the traffic, this is a hugely necessary thing for the communities out there.

The Evergreen line will make a very real difference in people's lives when it's built. It's been a long time coming. This government is committed to making sure that it happens. We've committed $410 million to the project, as I'm sure the member knows, and that's in addition to the over $400 million that's been committed by the government of Canada. That money remains committed.

We're patiently waiting for TransLink to finalize their share of the funding that it had previously committed to the project. The ball is in their court. We're waiting to hear from the mayors and how they intend to get their funding to the table that they've agreed to bring, and we're very much looking forward to that.

From my perspective, this project can't happen soon enough. So I hope the mayors can find a way to meet their commitment that they made so that we can get on with this project. It is a worthy project. It makes a real difference — and not just in terms of people's lives and people's commute times, which when you live in the suburbs really takes a chunk out of your life.
[ Page 7841 ]

I'm not alone in knowing this. Thousands and thousands of people, particularly around the Lower Mainland, know this. When you live in the suburbs and you're struggling with a commute every single day, it takes hours out of your time with your family. The quality-of-life change when you're able to cut that commute down is really big. That's certainly been one of the great values of having the train go out there as well, which has been a huge benefit for the communities.

Not only that, though. It's a big impact for the environment, a very positive impact for the environment in terms of reducing our carbon footprint. I think the project makes a lot of sense. We want to see it go ahead as soon as it possibly can, and we are waiting patiently for the mayors to meet their commitment and come forward with their share of the money. Our money absolutely remains committed.

A. Dix: The Premier in the last election, the Liberal Party — that's the majority in the House today; it's the reason why the Premier is the Premier — committed that the construction on this project, the project they committed to the people of the Tri-Cities and the people of the Lower Mainland, would be started in 2010. It's the Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance who chose the governance structure.

In fact, as much as they try to blame the mayors, it's the provincial government that controls the governance structure at TransLink. They chose the alignment. They chose the operating system, which set the cost. They chose all of these things. They dumped $100 million in costs on fare gates onto them without funding them — the provincial government. That was also the Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance. They're good at dumping the cost. Nothing is happening. They keep delaying. They keep promising this election after election after election, and nothing happens.

So I guess I want to ask the Premier: does the Premier not think that there's a provincial role here in helping to ensure that the project actually go ahead? I mean, it's one thing to be able to say: "It's the mayors. Blame the mayors." The key decisions here were made by the province, and the province is absent without leave in this discussion. Clearly, there's a problem with the project. They said that construction would be underway in 2010, and now it's some indeterminate point in the future.

I know that the Liberal Party likes to save campaign promises from election after election after election. It's kind of the transportation equivalent of 5,000 long-term care beds, but the fact of the matter is that they are responsible for the situation we're in. Now it appears that a project which people in the Tri-Cities, but also all over the Lower Mainland, are expecting will go ahead is indefinitely delayed because the government doesn't have its act together.

What is the Premier going to do? What efforts is the Premier going to initiate to ensure that the Evergreen line, which the people of B.C. were promised by the Liberal Party in the 2009 election — it wasn't an abstraction; they said construction was going to start in 2010 when they campaigned in that election campaign — that the Liberal party follow through on that commitment…?

[1100]

Hon. C. Clark: Well, we do remain fully supportive of this project. It is a great project for the Tri-Cities. It's great for the environment. It's great for commuters who want to be able to spend more time with their families. We are absolutely fully supportive of it going ahead, and we remain committed to it.

That $410 million that the government committed to the project is there. It absolutely remains committed. The federal money is there; it remains committed. What still needs to be done is that the mayors need to find a way to meet the commitment that they made to come up with their share of the money. I know that it's difficult. They're a large group of people, diverse points of view. Nonetheless, they need to find a solution to come up with their share of the money.

As I said, I don't think that this project can go ahead soon enough. We want to make sure that it goes ahead absolutely as fast as possible, because the people of the Tri-Cities need it. They deserve it. It's been promised for a long time, and the money is committed to support it.

As I said, we're waiting patiently for the mayors to come up with their portion of the money, a portion that they committed to finding. I'm very, very hopeful that they will be able to do that. We're working in the spirit of cooperation with them, and we've certainly been working with them all along.

As I said, we're hopeful that they'll be able to meet the commitment they made. We're very, very hopeful that we can get this project moving as soon as humanly possible, because the people of the Tri-Cities need this, and they deserve it.

A. Dix: Well, the government signed an MOU in September 2010 on this question. They have the lead on this file along with the mayors. What has the province done? Well, what have they done? I guess there was an extension. When they signed the MOU, it was a two-party MOU. It wasn't just the mayors; it was the province. The province has a role in that, obviously.

[1105]

We're talking about a significant portion of money that has to be found and so far no apparent tax source or other source for that money, which is apparent.

So the province took responsibility in September 2010. All that happened then was there was an extension after that provided till March, now another extension. There'll be more extensions presumably in future.

The province signs an MOU saying they're taking the lead on this matter. What does that mean if they're not
[ Page 7842 ]
doing anything? They're just sitting back and taunting the mayors, saying: "Oh, you're failing us; you're the reason."

It was the province and the B.C. Liberal Party that committed to this project going ahead. It was the province and the B.C. Liberal Party that signed the MOU and said they were taking a lead. Where are they? What does that mean, other than asking the mayors to find the money magically somehow?

So what does the province's leadership on the Evergreen line mean? What does the MOU mean? What does the province's role in that MOU mean, if they're not going to do anything to support the mayors in finding their share of the money?

[1110]

Hon. C. Clark: The MOU with TransLink made a commitment that they would find a way to close the gap on funding this incredibly important piece of infrastructure, one that will, as I said, do a great deal to diminish our carbon footprint and also do a lot to improve the quality of life in the Tri-Cities, which is long overdue. This has been promised for a long time.

I note that with previous governments, when this member was chief of staff to other Premiers, this was promised. In mid-1998 they put out a press release announcing that they were setting the course for the new SkyTrain line out in the Tri-Cities, and they never delivered on it. Of course, the difference with this is that this government has committed $410 million to this SkyTrain line, to making sure it happens. That's something that they failed for a decade to deliver on — promises, promises, promises and never any funding, never any real commitment. They never ever, ever put their money where their mouth was. It was all just empty talk.

The difference is this government has committed $410 million. We have set that money aside. It is ready; it is waiting. We are committed to our part of making sure that this line goes. We have worked with the federal government. They've come up with $400 million. We put the hard work in there to make sure that happened. I know that the mayors are working hard and that TransLink is working hard to find a way to also meet their commitment.

The thing about government once you've been doing it for a while is that a commitment doesn't matter for anything if you don't attach some money to it. If government is unwilling to put their money where their mouth is, it is just empty words.

That is what we saw for a decade under the New Democrats, for a decade when this member sat in the Premier's office — empty words. Empty words to the people of the Tri-Cities, and eventually the people of the Tri-Cities caught up with that and turfed them out of office.

This government has come up with the money. We aren't just saying we want to do it; we have committed the money to doing it. As I said, I don't think that this line can get started soon enough. That money is there. The federal money is there. All we need is for the mayors to be able to resolve their part of the funding problem.

We have an agreement with them. We've made a firm commitment. We're walking the talk. We've put our money where our mouth is. This is vastly different from what we saw in the decade of New Democrats, in the decade of decline in British Columbia, where it was promises, promises, promises and almost never anything delivered. That's why the people of the Tri-Cities are counting on us to deliver this.

We will deliver it. We want to see this happen. We've delivered our share of the money. We've been working with the mayors, and we've been working with TransLink. I know I'm confident that with all the smart people around that table, they will be able to meet their commitment.

The other difference, of course, between us and the NDP…. I mean, the Leader of the Opposition stands up and says: "Oh gee, we wish you would just tell them what to do."

[1115]

Well, that's not the way government should work in British Columbia. It is the way that it used to work in the 1990s when we had a provincial government that felt like it was up to them to decide to order every other level of government around, to tell them what to do — everything out of the Premier's office. The decisions of the Premier ruled the day. It was "my way or the highway" when that member sat in the Premier's office.

That is not my approach to governing. That is not the right direction for British Columbia. We need to respect the autonomy of local governments. We need to allow them to be able to make the decisions that they're empowered to make. We need to respect them when they say they make a commitment, and we need to believe in their ability to fulfil it.

This is an agreement for cooperation. It's not an agreement for my way or the highway, which is probably the way the Leader of the Opposition would like it, because certainly that's the way he helped govern when he sat in the Premier's office.

It's a different approach to governing. It's an approach where we put our money where our mouth is. And it's an approach where, when we say we want to cooperate and we want to respect other levels of government, we actually deliver on that.

A. Dix: Well, it's all very interesting. You know, in 1998 we were building the Millennium Line. I don't know what the…. I guess the Premier is warming up for her coming period as Leader of the Opposition.

I mean, the line was built. I know in my case, I take transit and TransLink and SkyTrain almost every day. The Premier may not be aware that you can take the
[ Page 7843 ]
Millennium Line through North Burnaby to Lougheed Mall, but that's what you can do. I take it regularly. I take SkyTrain all the time in my duties, of course, like the people of the Tri-Cities.

This has been promised for a long time, and the government has failed to deliver. They made a big announcement in September 2010. The person who is now the Solicitor General, who was the Transportation Minister, was there. The Premier was there. They said that funding would be in place by the end of 2010 — right?

They took responsibility for that, and then they didn't deliver, as they haven't delivered again and again on this project. So that's the question, but I'll move on. The Premier wants to wax eloquent about the 1990s, but the fact is they've been in power for ten years, and they're still talking about a funding commitment to something they've repeatedly promised over the last few years. It's embarrassing.

In her open letter on her website the Premier referred to using the carbon tax to support public transit. I just want to ask the Premier what she means by that. The Minister of Transportation seemed to suggest that might be a new carbon tax or a regional carbon tax. What did the minister mean since, obviously, they've already spent all the carbon tax money? Now they've spent it again with the HST announcement. What does the Premier mean by using the carbon taxes to support public transit?

[1120]

Hon. C. Clark: I know the member mentioned the Millennium Line as a decision which they interfered with as well, not respecting, again, the role of municipal and local governments in decision-making, more evidence of the "my way or the highway" approach.

Of course, the reason I go back to the 1990s is because that's the last time this member had his hands on the levers of power. I think if people want to know what they're getting with the Leader of the Opposition, we need to look back at his history in government. He says: "Well, gee, we interfered with it, but was it built?" Yeah, it got built, and boy, did they interfere with it.

I don't think local governments like that heavy-handed approach. I think local governments and local taxpayers expect to be respected, but they also expect governments to be able to commit the money when they say they're going to do something — to come up with the money for it, which is exactly what we've done.

The member references an open letter that I wrote, and I just want to read some of it into the record.

"Over the past several years, B.C. has gained international recognition for being a leader on the green economy and taking strong, bold steps to reduce our carbon footprint. We have set legislated targets to reduce our carbon emissions 33 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050. And as a province, we have taken strong, bold steps to achieve them."

When I took office on March 14, there were important decisions to be made.

"Do we follow the path that has been laid out through 2012 on the carbon tax? Do we continue to be engaged with other provinces and states in developing policies to reduce carbon emissions?"

In both cases, as I said in my letter, the answer is yes.

Getting to the member's question: where do we go from here? The carbon tax has put a price on carbon, and it is revenue-neutral, as I'm sure the member knows. But what the Minister of Transportation and I have been talking about are future carbon taxes after the next scheduled increments in 2012 and whether or not some of that could go to support transit.

What I said in my letter is that I'm open to having that discussion with local communities. One of the important things to remember, though, is that if we are to have that discussion, everybody walking in the room has to know that we will not entertain any discussion that means the folks from Kimberley are paying for a SkyTrain to UBC. We are just not going to entertain that kind of debate or discussion with the local mayors.

There is going to have to be a regional aspect to the discussion as we enter into it. What I've said is I'm interested in entering into that discussion because I think there is an appetite for it, and we are very committed to the climate change agenda, unlike the New Democrats.

They voted against the carbon tax. They ran in an election against the carbon tax. They ran in an election against the carbon tax, and of course, they lost. They voted against cap-and-trade enabling legislation. They didn't support that, and they lost. They've called for a moratorium on clean power, including wind power, across the province. They oppose Site C, which produces power at among the lowest GHGs per gigawatt compared to other forms of power.

[1125]

They support running Burrard Thermal full out, a massive generator of GHGs, and they stand up and talk about the carbon tax like it was their idea.

They talk about protecting the environment like it was their idea. We talk about recent history, which is of course what I'm talking about — their opposition to most of the government's clean energy, climate change agenda, which they've been steadfastly, ideologically, dogmatically opposed to.

They talk about the carbon tax like it was their idea. Then you look back in time, and even their own members say they had a lousy record on protecting the environment when they had a chance to do something about it when they were in power. Even their own members say that, and they still get up in the Legislature on a regular basis and try and adopt the clean energy, clean environment, climate change agenda when all they have done is try and stand in the way of the environmental initiatives that this government has taken over the years.

They ran in an election against the clean energy initiatives that this government has taken. It takes a lot of gall for the Leader of the Opposition — whose own
[ Page 7844 ]
members say had a terrible record when he was in government and who has been part of an opposition that has consistently opposed all of the government's agenda to try and combat climate change — to stand up today and pretend to be an environmental crusader who cares about what's going to happen with the carbon tax. He doesn't care what's going to happen with the carbon tax. If he had his way, they wouldn't have had one.

They ran in an election against it. They got trounced in that election, and why did they? Because British Columbians care about the environment. British Columbians care about climate change. British Columbians care about supporting a government that is going to make sure the environment is better when we leave it tomorrow than it is today.

British Columbians really care about these issues. British Columbians like the government's climate change agenda, an environmental agenda. They got a chance to issue their judgment on the New Democrats' opposition to all these initiatives. They did it, and they did it in style. They trounced them in an election.

A. Dix: Well, you know, of course, what prompts these long speeches. We ask a simple question about a letter that the Premier herself wrote, there's five minutes of consultation over there, and then we get a long speech about everything else but.

What we're talking about here is the Evergreen line.

Interjections.

A. Dix: They can talk. The member from Kamloops used to be against gambling.

The fact of the matter is that the B.C. Liberal Party promised the Evergreen line would start construction in 2010. They broke this promise. The Premier's response is: "Oh, they didn't build any rapid transit in the 1990s." We built the Millennium Line, and she says: "Oh, I don't like that." The difference, I guess, is that the Millennium Line, for people in the Tri-Cities, was built. The Evergreen line isn't being built, and the government isn't doing anything about it.

It's a pretty straightforward question. The Premier said on her website that she was considering using the carbon tax for transit. She now says that's a future carbon tax — it's some time in the future — that she's going to use for transit. So when is she going to start considering that option? This is a reasonable question. I mean, it's her letter. It's what she's proposing here.

"I am open to considering using the carbon tax to support regional initiatives." That's not just regional initiatives in the Lower Mainland; that's regional initiatives across the province. Well, when is she going to start that? It's her proposal. So when are those discussions going to be engaged? At what point in time? That's a reasonable question to ask the Premier about a letter she wrote in her budget year, and I just need an answer.

I look forward to another ten-minute speech from the party that opposed creating more parks than any other time in our history. They opposed it. Their members were advocating mining in parks at the time. We all remember that. Our park creation record changed British Columbia for the better, and their record has been to allow the deterioration of our parks.

The Premier's great achievement was stopping charging for parking in parks. But they did it. The point is if it wasn't the B.C. Liberal Party and her own government once she was part of it that did it…. This is her greatest achievement — taking off a negative thing that the government itself did.

[1130]

So it's a pretty simple question for the Premier. She may not want to answer. That's okay, I guess. We'll move on to something else. She proposed it. I'm just asking her when those discussions around a new carbon tax are scheduled to begin.

Hon. C. Clark: Well, the beginning of the consultation was the issuance of the letter letting people know that I'm open to having these discussions, and I know that the Environment Minister is also open to having these discussions. They are in the process of designing a more formal process for making sure that we get feedback on it and have a chance to talk about it.

But I can say this in terms of the less formal process. As part of my commitment to open government, we have been doing town halls. I have been personally doing unscripted town halls all across the province. I've been to visit Fort St. John. I've been to visit Cranbrook most recently. I had a great visit in Cranbrook. And I've been to visit Comox, Richmond. We've done town halls across the province, and they've been great.

Those are a chance for real consultation with people about where we're going with the carbon tax and where we're going with climate change. These issues have certainly come up in many of the communities. And you know what people say? They say: "We care about the impact that we're having on the environment." People say: "We care about the climate change agenda. We care about making sure that we are going to leave the environment in good shape for our children and grandchildren."

People care about those issues in a very real way. So I'm getting feedback as I go all across the province and talk to people in the spirit of open government. Those town halls that I've been doing across the province have been unscripted, as I said. It's been great because people, first of all, are surprised to be able to see a Premier and cabinet ministers go into an open forum that's open to the public and get a chance to say whatever is in their hearts and their minds.

People speak very honestly, sometimes very forcefully, about the things that are on their minds. Often we
[ Page 7845 ]
disagree, but people are respectful in their exchange, because people want to be heard.

That's what open government is about. It's about making sure that people have a chance to be heard. So that's why we're doing the town halls. We've heard a lot about climate change at the town halls. We hear a lot about the government's climate change agenda — some people who have issues with it, some people who support it. But certainly, there is a huge concern across the province about these issues.

So I'm going to keep doing those town halls. We are going to do that kind of consultation where people are allowed to speak about whatever's on their minds.

[1135]

We are also going to do, as I said, a more focused consultation as well about what could happen. I'm open to having the discussion. A decision hasn't been made about whether or not it will happen. That's not our way. Coming up with a decision, and then going out and consulting with people afterwards is not what my government is about. We're about talking to people first.

I notice the member, in the entire estimates so far of my ministry, hasn't raised the issue of the HST and hasn't raised his support for increasing taxes on people — a 12 percent tax versus a 10 percent tax.

I understand that he hasn't raised that yet, but I want to raise it just to simply say this, and perhaps we can talk about it more a little bit later. We can talk about this perhaps a little bit more, and maybe we can talk about it in question period a little bit more. I'm always delighted to do that.

The thing with the HST consultation is that I recognized that the public was profoundly unhappy with the way it was brought in. So we went out and we conducted the largest listening exercise in British Columbia's history. We talked to close to 300,000 British Columbians about how they would like us to change the HST and improve it. We brought forward those changes based largely on the input that we had received from citizens.

I think it was a revolutionary way for government to make a decision, particularly one as important as this. This will be the most important tax decision that Canadians have ever been asked to make in a referendum, so it's important that it reflect British Columbians' aspirations and that those changes reflect their views.

So there's one example of a consultation that we've already embarked on and that has led us to an important conclusion. But I'm sure that our discussion on the carbon tax might be a different style of consultation, might be a different structure, but it will certainly be one that is intended to engage as many British Columbians as want to be a part of it, as many British Columbians as want to express their concern about where we're going with it on both sides.

We will take those views, and we will draw a conclusion. That's what open government is all about. It's a big change for British Columbia, but we are profoundly committed to making this change. Government is better when it listens. Government is better when we have the benefit of the advice of the citizens between elections, not just at elections. Government is better when we let all of those smart people, who didn't happen to run for office or maybe who did and weren't successful, be a part of the decision-making of government.

When government is better, the province is better. That's the kind of consultation that we embarked on for the HST. It might be a slightly different style of consultation that we do on the carbon tax, but that's going to be the discussion that we have. I'm certainly open to having it, and I'm very much looking forward to hearing what British Columbians want for their province on this issue.

A. Dix: I am looking forward to our discussion of the HST, which I thought we'd end off with in these estimates. The Premier seems to think that there is some sort of miracle in unscripted meetings. I don't know. I have them all the time, every day, but apparently, she thinks that's something to congratulate herself for. To say that she occasionally has an unscripted meeting is something else.

When you consider….

Interjection.

A. Dix: Well, the fact of the matter is that we had the CORE process in the 1990s, and they have the environmental review process. I think our process has been respected around the world, and their process….

Interjection.

A. Dix: Of course, I know that you wouldn't want to intervene at any point with the member from Kamloops who is reflecting on his views on gambling right now and has a steady role here.

So just to be clear what they voted for, the Premier's approach to consultation has been dealt with in the Supreme Court of British Columbia just recently where her bill to overturn class size and composition changes — her bill, her project — was condemned by the B.C. Supreme Court. That's her record.

The Premier was in the Legislature in 2002. They introduced a bill on a Friday, contrary to what they specifically promised. Contrary to what they specifically promised, they introduced a bill on Friday, and they passed it on Sunday at 4 a.m. The Premier was there where they stripped contract rights from some of the lowest-paid people in the public sector. They did that. That's her approach to consultation. That's the record — the largest layoff of female workers in history. That's their record.

[1140]
[ Page 7846 ]

To hear them come in here and talk about "unscripted" is a bit much. It's a bit contemptible, but that's the way it goes. The fact of the matter is they promised, in successive campaigns, the Evergreen line. They've broken that promise. The Premier, I know, has her people trying to shout this down. That's fine. But the fact of the matter is…. We listened to that long speech that had nothing to do with the question asked, and if that's the way the B.C. Liberal Party wants to operate, I guess those are unscripted too.

It seems to me that a government with the record of the one we have — one that has disrespected the people that work for government, disrespects their jobs…. We know what the member from Kamloops said. We know what the member from Kamloops thought of those HEU workers. He expressed that view publicly, and I think that reflects…. It was reflected by every member of the B.C. Liberal Party. They put forward those views publicly, and I think their views are on the public record.

They promised in an election campaign one set of things. The Premier herself…. I mean, Voice of B.C. asked her just before they privatized B.C. Rail: is there anything you wouldn't privatize? That's what they said, having promised in the 2001 election that they wouldn't privatize B.C. Rail. The Premier was asked: is there anything you wouldn't privatize? And the Premier of this day, the Minister of Education of that day, said the one thing: B.C. Rail. And then they went and did it. That's consultation, hon. Chair, and the rest, of course, is the history of that case.

You talk about the HST and consultation. They promised in writing not to do it before the 2009 election, and then they did it. They promised it was revenue-neutral. They sent letters out to people. They said it would be revenue-neutral, and then they misled people about that. Let's face it. They misled people about that, that it was revenue-neutral.

In 2010 we passed a law in this Legislature. They said that all of the money would go to health care, and they're talking about a budget, a change in budgets. I mean, this is a government in that same election…. We're talking about a tax increase, the HST, on working families that was brought in because the government said there was a $450 million deficit. That deficit proved to be $3.7 billion, without the HST money. That's what happened. They were 900 percent off. They campaigned…. The recession happened in 2008. They misled people in 2009. So the reason we had the HST was because they misled people.

Then we go forward from there. We're promised a referendum campaign — right? That wasn't brought about by this government. It was brought about by the people in what was actually the largest consultation in history — 700,000 people. People going to doors, not using public funds to phone people up, to pay with their own money. They went to the doors.

The B.C. Liberal members now are claiming that the very people the Premier talks about were wrong — that when they signed those petitions, they were wrong, that the people who signed those petitions were wrong to do so. The people who signed those petitions were right to do so, and they got their referendum that this government tried to deny.

Then the Premier said in her leadership campaign: "I'm not going to have a referendum now. I want to have a free vote in the House." That didn't last for more than a few weeks. Then we were promised by the Premier, we were promised on the HST itself that it would be conducted like a provincial general election. Then that promise was broken. It was broken by the Premier. That decision was made by the Premier. She said it. She talked about it just now.

They said that that referendum would be held on the guidelines of a provincial election, like a provincial election in every way. The Premier herself said that the way they conducted themselves, her colleagues conducted themselves in 2009…. She said that her colleagues were "sneaky" in the way that they brought in the HST. That's what the Premier said. It wasn't what I said. I didn't think you were sneaky. The Premier said that the member from Kamloops and his colleagues were sneaky in bringing up the HST.

[1145]

So, at that time, during the leadership campaign the B.C. Liberal Party said that the referendum campaign would be conducted like a provincial election. Now, they're doing $5 million in TV ads right now that would be illegal if this was being conducted under the rules of a provincial general election. The government would not be able to advertise and try and influence the debate in that way, using public funds during a provincial general election. They would not be able to do that.

The Premier promised that. That promise wasn't made in 2001 or 2002. The Premier seems to be denying responsibility for her actions at that time. There was a promise made in February of this year, in February 2011, and that promise was broken.

Then the promise was made that we weren't going to influence. This was going to be a choice that the people made, a choice that the people made in their own referendum, in their own initiative campaign, between the PST-GST on one hand and the HST. The Premier said it would be like buying votes to make a big change and to propose a lowering of the rate, and then, of course, the Premier did just that.

So broken promise after broken promise after broken promise on the HST. That's the record of the government. That's what they've done over the last period of time. They have consistently broken their word on this issue, and the Premier has as well, just as the previous Premier did. There's no change. This is a continuation of the legacy of Mr. Campbell on the HST. That is what this is.
[ Page 7847 ]

Hon. Chair, are you noting the hour? Do you want me to move the motion?

The Chair: Yes.

A. Dix: I'll be happy to.

I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:47 a.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